Lord Jesus did not resurrect

mahak · August 19, 2003

Haribol, I was reading the speculations about Jesus and the Veda, and decided that it was getting unwieldly there (Thanks, Jagat, for the word you used to correct the old mela).

About resurrection, it never happened, because Lord Jesus did not die. I always wonder about . theology, they say that jesus is god and then he died at the hands of roman and jewish assassins. Talk about speculation.

Krsna confirms that whenever there is a decline in religion, He descends. There are certainly the scheduled avatars, but Krsna is not bound by the Veda, he comes and goes as he pleases. Plus, he reserves the right to send anyone of his associates anywhere he (or they) want to go. The saktiavesa avatars are often jivas who are fixed up in swarup, and often, these folks are travelers, like Narada Muni. When they appear, Krsna is said to appear as well, because there is oneness in purpose with the mission of God and the mission of his unalloyed se4rvants.

Such avatars are not controlled by material nature, they are born and they die at their own whim. Death never overtook Lord Jesus, so there is no question of resurrection. This magic is an invention by those who feel the need to FORTIFY their theology. This need to FORTIFY jesus by having him mentioned in the veda is also inventive. Lord Jesus needs no mundane fortification for justification.

Also, Veda is never possessed or contained, itsd nothing like the bible that has been ruined by man by political mechanations, cut and dried. Veda also means the histories and the Author Himself, Srila Vyasadeva, has expanded the veda to mean "any writing that describes the name, fame, pastimes, associates, etc, are acceptable by those who are fully honest". So, maybe I cant see Jesus on line 50 of the rg veda, or chapter 67 of the Visnu Purana, but since Srila Prabhupada, as well as predecessor acaryas like Bhaktivinode Thakur, describe Lord Jesus as a high calibre Vaisnava, I can accept the veda as such. The words from guru and sadhu comprise shastra, and nothing they mention about lord jesus christ goes against established shastra.

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

AncientMariner · August 19, 2003

That's very well said. It is very superficial to say Jesus died but still Christianity seems to stress the fact that He died rather than the fact that He is still alive. Sorry no offense to Christians intended.

mahak · August 19, 2003

Haribol. Your note rings quite true, which is why christianity cannot claim Vaisnavism, though their asserted leader, Lord Jesus Christ, is fully accepted.

Christianity is a product of political man, and the so-called religion practiced is banned by Srila Rupa Goswami, as eccliastic religion.

Lord Jesus Christ clearly states (why this wasnt deleted by the councils, Ill never know), "In the years to come, many will come in My name, healing the sick, raising the dead, but I know them not, they are not mine, for they fail to do the will of My Father. I will say to them, 'Get away from me, for you only perform evil'"

We see this today, christians non-different from hypocrit muslims, hindus and jews as well, all groups with potential to be vaisnavic by their line of lover's of the Supreme Lord and doers of His will. Religionists who cannot ever concieve of comparitive religious study because of their false identification with the self. Their clan, their congregation, their synods. Their false identification with their stupid and temporary causes to the point of artificially pretending their masters approve of their demniac behavior.

The world has had enough of these workers of iniquity, the christians, hindus, jews, muslims, all claiming to be doing the works of the church, but all failing miserably in developing the compassion, the toleration, the (god forbid) the transcendence, failing to do the will of the Supreme Lord, the Father of Lord Jesus Christ.

Lord Jesus teaches humility and love of god and others. He does not preach salvation, he in fact denies this as a goal beyond selfishness. The Bhakti he presents, initiated by recitation of the Lord's Prayer with sincerity and promise to adhere to the ideas presented therein, will lead one to devotion in both servitude, and friendship. While the higher rasas of parental and conjugal affection yoga are subtly touched upon via His line (not just the bible, which is a compilation of about 50 separate books, but the thousands of volumes still being discovered as authentic, beyond the scope of paulist religiosity), the friendship and servitude can be fully attained through His via-medium mission on behalf of His Father.

So, if one offends paundraka pretender christians, no sweat, for they are more offensive than the hedonists without pretense about what they hold valuable. Those who are followers of Lord Jesus Christ have full capacity to render all respect to all that is said about the Father, I have experianced this type of follower. They keep away from churches with a passion, and they would never even consider to become a republican (or democrat, for that matter).

Ramblin, but I hope yall catch my drift. Comparing religions is easy in this age, all of them are man-made idiocy. Bhagavad Gita is very clear in total summary of the king of knowledge, raja-vidya, "Give up all religions, and do the will of the Father." Jesus says this as well, in the simplest of terms, "our Father, of the Spiritual Realm, all glories to your Holy Name".

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

AncientMariner · August 20, 2003

You have very nicely summed up my experience with Christianity. "Religionists who cannot ever concieve of comparitive religious study because of their false identification with the self. Their clan, their congregation. Their false identification with their stupid and temporary causes to the point of artificially pretending their masters approve of their demonic behavior." I try to be nice but the older I get the more I tend to agree with your sentiment "If one offends a pretender Christian, no sweat, for they are more offensive than the hedonists without pretense about what they hold valuable." Anyway I appreciate your intelligent and straightforward manner of speaking.

Hare Krishna

mahak · August 20, 2003

Haribol. I do not like being confrontational. An old Krsna e group, the Garuda express, sometimes got a bit confrontational, but I was called the dear abby of garuda by a contributor because of my non-confrontational attitude.

That said, there is no confrontation with the christians that I speak of, and the church loyal moslems, jews and hindus as well. Their teachers teach vaisnavism, but they reject and pretend that impersonal eccliastic religion is the goal of life. They are worse than hedonists. Association with gross matter addicts is never recommended, but these folks can be reached via the preaching method devised by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, the humble persuasion, the injection of dharma-friendly topics in everyday conversation. Hedonists respond, and quite well. Srila Prabhupada made hedonists into devotees, it was the religionists who employed the likes of ted patrick and other so-called deprogrammers.

I used to tell folks the best way to get rid of mormons or JWs who invade one's privacy is to warmly chant hare krsna and proceed to tell them about the concept of aham brahmasmi. Your home will be marked, and they will never come back. (The mormons might, because they seem to have open minds and their theology is revolutionary).

I worked on a military facility, top secret, for the last twenty years until 2002, and had great preaching success with followers of Lord Jesus Christ. Only one captain of sixteen submarine crews rejected a new bhagavad gita as it is for the ships library. A human resource officer jumped on my bandwagon when someone defaced my locker that had a picture of Sri Sri Krsna Balarama. But these "victims" of my preaching ewfforts were the exception rather than the rule. One mention of life beyond the physical body, outside the realm of the time factor, one mention of God having a wife (even though the word Israel translates as the wife of god), or even that jesus can be personally associated with, well, they would kill me if they could, and think that jesus gave power and permission for such killing.

Christians are contemptable, as are jews, hindus and muslims. These are the kali yuga religions that Krsna wishes us to give up in favor of surrendering to Him. Some go well beyond the confines of eccliastic religiosity, but they become pariahs of their own congregations. The only churches that accept those who see the fire instead of the smoke created by mental speculation are groups who believe in everything, unitarians, who may be pious, but have no direction.

Comes down to one issue, guru tattwa, and how does one activate such a miracle available to all without cost, or at the cost of tears from the nervous breakdown which makes one surrender to God.

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

August 21, 2003

There is no greater Love than the Love of Jesus.

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?'" John 11:25-26

"Just as the Son of man came not to be waited on but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many--the price paid to set them free" (Matthew 20:28).

"He personally bore our sins in His (own) body to the tree (as to an alter and offered Himself on it), that we might die (cease to exist) to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed" (1 Peter 2:24).

August 21, 2003

Does the Evidence For the Resurrection Offer Proof

That Jesus Rose From the Dead?—Part One

By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

Why is the Resurrection so important?

The Resurrection of Christ is absolutely central to either establishing or disproving the Christian religion. For example, the great rationalist Dr. Guignebert, Professor of History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, one of the most important professorships in all of France, and

honorary associate of the Rationalist Press Association of Great Britain, utterly repudiated the idea of Christ’s Resurrection, along with all miracles. Nevertheless he stated:

There would have been no Christianity if the belief in the resurrection had not been founded and systematized.... The whole of the soteriology and the essential teaching of

Christianity rests on the belief of the resurrection, and on the first page of any account of Christian dogma might be written as a motto Paul’s declaration: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” From the strictly historical point of

view, the importance of belief in the resurrection is scarcely less....

In like manner, the first great rationalistic interpreter of the New Testament of modern times, David Friedrich Strauss, conceded the Resurrection was “the Touchstone not of lives [biographies] of Jesus only, but of Christianity itself” and is “decisive for the whole view of

Christianity.”

The Resurrection is vital because upon the Resurrection of Christ all Christianity either stands or falls.

What solid evidence exists for Jesus’ Resurrection? We will now present that evidence point by point.

Did Jesus unequivocally claim He would rise from the dead on the third day?

Who else in all human history, but Jesus Christ, ever said he would come back from the dead after being murdered? It is a fact that Jesus publicly announced He would rise from

the dead, and not only this, but that He predicted He would do so on a very specific date, the third day. In the field of comparative religion, this immediately places us in the position of uniqueness. No one else ever made such claims. No sane man ever has, other than Jesus.

For example, consider the Pope publicly declaring that he would shortly be executed and rise from the dead on the third day. Or Billy Graham, the President of the United States, or any other well-known person making such a claim.

Because we know that the chances for any person rising from the dead are zero, we would immediately know that they were either deluded or lying and attempting to deceive us. We repeat, no one ever makes such astounding claims which they know they cannot possibly fulfill.

But Jesus did. On numerous occasions. Before His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus stated: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 20:18-19).

Again, during His Galilean ministry, after the healing of the demoniac, He asserted, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of

the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:39-40).

Just after Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah we are told that, “He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and

the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31).

In fact, when Peter rebuked Him for saying this would happen, Jesus rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Mark 8:32-33, cf. Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22).

Early in His ministry, after the cleansing of the temple, He told the Jews in Jerusalem, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). John comments that, “He was speaking of the temple of His body” (John 2:21).

After Jesus’ own transfiguration He again predicted He would be raised from the dead:

“The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and

He will be raised on the third day” (Matthew 17:22-23, cf. Mark 9:31).

Even prior to His crucifixion, Jesus again emphasized and predicted that on the third day He would rise from the dead, “And He took the Twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the

Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him;

and the third day He will rise again’” (Luke 18:31-33, cf. Mark 10:34).

Jesus even predicted the specific day of His death by crucifixion: “You know that after two days the Passover is coming and the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion” (Matthew 26:2).

Immediately after the Last Supper, when the disciples had gone to the Mount of Olives, Jesus again predicted His Resurrection, “Then Jesus said to them, ‘You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, “I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.” But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee’” (Matthew 26:31-32, cf. Mark 14:28).

Now consider for a moment what you have just read. On all the above occasions and more, Jesus predicted in advance that He would die and be raised from the dead. Who

else in all human history ever made such predictions?

Further, note the specific nature of the predictions:

1. The Resurrection from the dead would be performed by Jesus’ own power (John 2:19; 10:18).

2. Many sufferings would be endured before His death (Mark 8:31). He would be mocked, mistreated, spit on and whipped (Luke 18:31-33).

3. Rejection by the elders and chief priests would be involved (Mark 8:31).

4. The events would transpire in Jerusalem (Matthew 20:18-19).

5. The chief priests and scribes would condemn Him to death but deliver Him to the Romans (Matthew 20:18-19).

6. He would fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah’s death and Resurrection (Luke 18:31-33).

7. He would die specifically by crucifixion (Matthew 26:2).

8. He predicted to the day when this would occur (Matthew 26:2).

9. He predicted all the disciples would fall away, despite the fact every one gave strong

emotional protestations to the contrary (Matthew 26:31-35).

10. To the exact day, He predicted when He would return from the dead—”on the third day”

(Luke 16:31-33).

How does a mere man know such things? How could he be so specific? How could Jesus be certain He would not die by natural or accidental death? Or be murdered, or killed

in a war? How did He know He would die by crucifixion on the Passover in Jerusalem?

Why not in a dozen different locations or on a hundred different days? How did He know every apostle to the last man would desert Him? How could He claim He would fulfill “all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man” (Luke 18:31), or that in His own power He would conquer death (John 2:19; 10:18)? How could He predict the exact day He would rise—not to mention all the rest? Had He failed on any one of these predictions, He would have been shown to be wrong and His claim (John 5:16-18; 10:27-33) would have been proven false. Claiming to be God leaves one very few options. But Jesus was not wrong even once.

We submit that there is only one explanation: Jesus was who He claimed He was—the divine Savior of the world, the One to whom our allegiance is due.

The above are not all of the predictions that Christ made concerning His Resurrection, but they are more than sufficient to establish the fact of such prediction. No one can deny that we have these predictions.

Why are the facts of Jesus’ death, the public location of the grave, the placing of the Roman guards, and the empty tomb all compelling evidences for the Resurrection of

Christ?

Certain facts about Jesus are accepted by nearly all historians and other scholars who

have objectively examined the data.

• No one can logically deny the certain fact of Jesus’ death.

• No one can logically deny the placing of the body in a grave whose location was known by all, including the enemies of Christianity.

• No one can logically deny the employment of the Roman military guard at the request of the Jewish leaders to guard the tomb (See Matthew 27:27, 65).

• No one can logically deny the fact of the empty tomb.

These historical points form a unit. Together these provide strong evidence that Jesus rose from the dead

theist · August 21, 2003

When Mahak says that Jesus didn't resurrect because he didn't die we have to think hard on what this means.

Jesus certainly laid down his body on the cross. It was entombed and three days later Jesus CAME BACK for it, picked it up and preached some more.

If you think the form you see with your carnal eyes is guru you will be confused forever on this point. It certainly is spiritual and holy because he is using directly in Krsna's service 100%. But he has his existence apat from it as well.

A question: Does it not say in the Bible that during those three days that his body was in the tomb, Jesus actually went to the hellish regions and freed the captives there?

If so, then who went, since his body was lying in the tomb? Obviously Jesus himself went.

I'll try to confirm the point but perhaps someone else knows the chapter and verse already.

August 22, 2003

"Does it not say in the Bible that during those three days that his body was in the tomb, Jesus actually went to the hellish regions and freed the captives there?"

Which part of the Bible? Can you please kindly refer us to the verses stating your claims?

".....that Jesus didn't resurrect because he didn't die we have to think hard on what this means."

IF CHRIST HAS NOT DIED....

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 - Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith also is empty. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the keystone of the Christian faith. Christianity stands or falls at this point. In other words, Christianity is ultimately based not only on ethical and religious teachings (as are other world religions), but on an historical event! The foundation of our faith is not just what Jesus taught, but what He did in history to back up His claims. You see, any self-styled religious leader can proclaim certain ethical and noble teachings, and may even dare to say, "I am the good shepherd." Some would go even further and say, "I lay down my life for my sheep," and then actually die for some "good cause." But who can continue these statements as Jesus did (see John 10:14-18) and claim a physical resurrection? "I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." What a claim! The ethical teachings of Jesus are inseparable from His claims about Himself and His power over death. If Jesus Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, then He was a deceiver (not even a good man), and Christianity is a fraud and a farce; Christians are just playing around at religious games!

Such radical statements are exactly what Scripture teaches to be the logical conclusions if indeed the resurrection of Christ did not take place. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 we are given several conclusions to which we must come if Christ has not risen from the dead. Without the bodily resurrection of Christ, Christianity is stripped of its basis and its power!

When is Hare Krishna Community started compared to Christianity? If we are not the true God's children..we didn't exist this long...

August 22, 2003

"The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the keystone of the Christian faith"

we devotees of krsna, know that god does not need to suffer and die to understand our condition and to help us

krsna is rishikesha.. the master of senses, he lives my reality with infinitely deeper intensity than me

so he knows me, he does not need to take a mortal body to enter in my reality and to relieve me from the suffering

as a paradox we are much much more satisfied if lord jesus christ did not die, this is a sign that he's a pure, divine master and he was not left unprotected by the Father

the fact that god has to take human flesh to be "complete" hides the mayavadi concept of the spiritual form and spiritual condition as evanescent, misty and illusory, different from the true and tangible reality of the matter

so the father stays in heaven, he does not knows the things of the humans, he need to take some flesh (created by satan? maya?) to enter in the history

mmh.... not a great philosophy...

jesus is a vaishnava, krsna protects him

August 23, 2003

"so the father stays in heaven, he does not knows the things of the humans, he need to take some flesh (created by satan? maya?) to enter in the history"

Hey...in your statement it seems you limit the power of God. God knows everything kiddo!!! He's not like our biological father that only knows what happened to us when being told by our mothers or if he is present in the situation...

The Father did not sent Jesus to understand us...but to deliver us from sins..to save us and give us hope. God created us..he knows everything from the number of your hair to the number of your cells..to how many times you fart..to how many times you cried...even the things undone..he knows everything......even he won't came to earth He will understand us..because is the MOST understanding God.....and he created us..like you assembled a robot..you will perfectly know what the functions of that screw and where it is located...unless you are like Dory in the movie finding NEMO hehehehehhe...Hey read it first before commenting please!

He is GOD. And God is the MOST of all the power....

Don't limit the power of God to the limitations of our small brain!

I noticed something....Why are you HK community don't understand each other and contradict at times? Is it becasue you are confused of your so many Gods? Ask the Christian of any denominations...they will say in chorus that Jesus is the way!

August 23, 2003

" God created us..he knows everything from the number of your hair to the number of your cells.."

if you take some time to read it is very easy to understand that this is your problem not mine

i do know that god is complete in itself and that he knows my life and he can help me... and i said it

but

you do believe that god is not able to do so if does not comes personally or send his son to be tortured and killed in the cross in ahuman and mortal body made of flesh and bones

....

discussions are very nice, but with people who is listening

mahak · August 23, 2003

Haribol, I am not misunderstood. There is no conversation at all in regard to those who identify the body as the self. There can be no delving into the science offered in Bhagavad Gita with such false identification.

Birth and death pertain only to the biological world, if biology is confused with spiritual identity, naturally folks think that jesus died. This is why in the vaisnava community, birth and death are described as appearance and disappearance. Surely, Lord Jesus appeared in the bio world, and when he operated after the attempted assassination, such biomass was not necaessary.

Funny, I am reminded about the assassins of socrates, who asked what should be done with him after their deed, cremation or burial, socrates replied, "it is not my concern, first you have to catch me."

The perversion of mundane christianity is such that it has come to worship the weapon used to torture Lord Jesus Christ. The cross was never used by early christians to denote their faith, they used the symbol of the fish. The cross is still a weapon used to bludgeon indigenous tribes and heathen cultures, a fanaticism that we do not equate with the terror cells in modern news, but the weapon used to offend Lord jesus is still used to dominate and destroy the principles laid down by the acarya, Lord Jesus Christ.

To say thay jesus has to die to ensure his potency is absolutely offensive if not utterly barbarian. But thinking this way is the majority of christian thought process. Christians, by bathing in the blood of their pretend and illusory guru, commit the greatest offense, and they are never forgiven under any circumstance.

We can certainly recognize the importance of the passion play. This is a demonstration by Lord Jesus that if we take his yoke, it may seem burdensome, but it is what happens when one surrenders to the Father. The world declares war on such a person, and the histories are full of the stories, from jerome and ambrose, to haridas. Lovers of god are tortured by the power rulers of the world.

It is not the death of Jesus, it is the impending doom of our own private armageddon. Jesus teaches us how to live, how to become forgiving, even to our enemies, but it is our cross, our death and our implication in the offence against Him and others doing the missionary work of the Supreme Person.

Jesus is in control of both his appearance and disappearance, we are the ones yanked out, screaming and tortured, all because we cannot separate matter from spiritual substance.

Haribol, mo latah, internet time is very limited lately, so forgive errors committed while typing at breakneck speed, ys, mahaksadasa

xxvvii · August 25, 2003

Jesus did die & resurrect later. The p. is how you think about death. Do you think it to be real or illusive?

August 25, 2003

Every word that you have written is true. A couple of years back, I was in a US university doing my Post Doc. One of my colleagues was a catholic and he hated people of every other religion. I received some pictures of Lord Narasimha, Srila Prabhupada etc. from my friend in India. I do not know how, but this colleague of mine got to know my password. and lo, next day, I saw all the computers in the lab. were flashing, pictures of Lord Narasimha as screensavers. Every other person in the lab. enquired me about the pictures. That was the first time, I felt, what it was to be a 'religious minority'. Every time this man hurt me, he left an apoloty note for me and so on. Slowly, he impressed the professor so well, that, I was ousted from the lab.

mahak · August 25, 2003

Haribol. Okay, Ill grant you that Jesus Christ suffered greatly at the hands of those who tried to assassinate him, but there is no question of death. In fact, many theologians dispute the whole concept, and truely surmise that the whole death and resurrection was created centuries later.

Srila Prabhupada clearly states that in this age, irreligion is disguised as religion, and this is the case with christianity. There is very little connection between Lord Jesus Christ and the cults that bear his name. The proof and a guage that we can use to test is the initiation prayer given by Lord Jesus. If one cannot FORGIVE those who tresspass against them, then they cannot (and should not) utter this mantra, for in the mantra they ask the Father of Lord Jesus Christ to deal with them in the same manner they deal with others. So the fundamentalist, rather that negotiate with the enemy from a humble platform, opts for bombs. The preaching is aggressive, against Lord Jesus' teachings, the christian burns the heathen with a hell they do not own.

The bible supposedly is the key by which God gives judgement to man. However, the christian rips this socalled book away from the Father, and uses it to judge the neighbor they are supposed to Love with. The very foundation they stand on is hypocracy, and very few are aloof from such demoniac irreligious behavior. In fact, the greatest enemy of the christian is not muslims, jews, or hindus, their enemy is the one who FOLLOWS the teachings of Lord Jesus, the very few mother theresa types out there who have transcended their envy of their fellow man by dint and the mercy of Lord Jesus Christ.

I am, myself, disgusted with the christian community, even more than my disgust with the false followers of muhammed. They fail to do the will of the father, which is summed up by Lord Jesus' description of the greatest commandment. They love only their fellow congregationists, aqnd hate all else. They hate the sinners while loving the sins. Their hate for the sinner is envy because they want to do what they have been forbidden to do by their psuedo beliefs.

I do not criticize anyone, who in the spirit of the prophets, follow Lord Jesus Christ, in fact I bow at their feet, hoping they can give me a little of what they got. But damned if Ill give any concession to the barbarian guru killers who say that jesus is impotent with out the blood and guts left on the lonely hill near armageddon. This is false doctrine.

We accept that great suffering is afforded all who come to the world with the word of God, and know that suffering is gladly given by the avatar in service to the people in general, but this is not new, nor is it just jesus. Jesus demands that we bear this cross as well, and we do not follow him by letting him bleed for our sins. We just cricify him over and over again so our lives can go on with little pain.

The passion play is not about His death, there are a multitude of important instructions given every tortuous step along the way. The guy who took the cross, the soldier who gave him a dring, the lady who wiped his face, the faith of his true followers that death would NOT overcome him.

But ya cant understand the shastra of this great vaisnava without a bonafide spiritual master any more than one can understand the great vedic scriptures. Christians wear "IMPERFECTION" like a tunic to be proud of, claiming that forgiveness comes no matter what just by saying they are His. This is unfortunate, because perfection is what Jesus enables us to become, its all in the mantra he gives, and the great teachings like the roman from capernaum etc.

Hare krsna, for now, ys, mahaksadasa

theist · August 25, 2003

Prabhupada accepted the resurrection.

Devotee: Prabhupäda? Does Lord Jesus Christ appear in the spiritual sky with the body he manifested on the earth?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Otherwise how there can be resurrection? Ordinary body cannot be resurrected. He appeared in his spiritual body, certainly. Jesus Christ told, if I remember, that “Lord, excuse these persons,” who were crucifying him. Is it not? He knew that “These rascals, they are killing me, but... They are offending certainly. So they do not know that I cannot be killed, but they are thinking that they are killing.” You see? But that was offensive, therefore he begged Lord to be excused because God cannot excuse to the offenders of the devotee. He can excuse one who is offender to God, but if somebody is offender to the devotee, God never excuses. Therefore he prayed for them. That is devotee’s qualification. He prays for everyone, even of his enemy. And he could not be killed. That he knew. But those rascals, they thought they were killing Jesus Christ.-Lec. Bg 4.16 LA Jan 3, 1969

Priitaa · August 26, 2003

There may be different definitions of the word "resurection," and so I am not going to get into that. I just wanted to present some info from the web that I found very convincing.

~~~~~~~~~

“I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.”

When the average person hears the word crucifixion, two things come to mind: (1) The crucifixion of Jesus Christ; (2) Death. In fact, for most of us crucifixion means death. That is simply because of the fact that there is only one individual that comes to mind when we see the word crucifixion: Jesus Christ. And as we “know,” Jesus Christ died on the cross, right? Well, according to the ancient and noted historian, Flavius Josephus, whom we quoted above, it was more than common for a crucifixion victim to be taken down from the cross alive and given “treatment so they could get better.” And, in the case of Flavius’s friends, one of them recovered from his crucifixion wounds. Dr. James Deardorff views Josephus’s testimony as the most powerful evidence that crucifixion victims could survive their ordeal.

We originally wanted to include a number of case studies demonstrating the capacity of human beings to survive all forms of the most horrendous trauma—even for periods of months. Then, as we did the research, we came across so many unbelievable cases that it was simply overwhelming. We did not even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that if the reader studies the matter at a library, or goes to the Internet and searches on “trauma” or “torture,” you will discover some absolutely shocking cases of survival. Seeing these, there should truly be no reason to be surprised that a human being could survive a crucifixion. Countless human beings have recovered from much worse.

Why do we assume that someone who was crucified automatically died on the cross? Well, there is an historical reality that cannot be forgotten. And that is that the Church at one time was the most powerful entity on earth. It was so powerful that it could pull down entire governments. Even though the Church is no longer viewed [by some] as this powerful, we can still get a hint of its might in past times just by recalling that a contemporary Pope, Pope John Paul II, is openly credited with being partially responsible for the downfall of the powerful Soviet Union, through the efforts of the Polish labor union Solidarity, the Catholic population in Poland and underground organizations.

We must remember that the Church carried on one of the most ruthless campaigns in human history for the purpose of establishing its doctrine as the uncontested religious doctrine on earth. One such operation lasted for 603 years (1231 to 1834) and was called the Inquisition [though the most brutal period, it seems, was between 1478 and 1834]. The Inquisition was initiated by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478 under the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand II and Isabella of Spain, and was first called the Spanish Inquisition. In the beginning, the primary targets of the Spanish Inquisition were Muslims and Jews. But the enemy list quickly broadened to include witches, political enemies, scientists who dared propose theories contrary to the Church’s official theories and others.

The Inquisition expanded widely into Europe and found some of its most savage expression during the Protestant Reformation. The methods of the Inquisition included torture, confiscation of property, the ripping of body parts while the victim was still alive through a rack-type device, and execution through burning. Everyone knew that the Church would not hesitate to torture and kill in order to establish its doctrine. Europe had witnessed the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492 and the genocide of the Moriscos—converted Muslims living in Spain who had maintained some of their Islamic practices—under the direction of the Inquisition’s first Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada.

The Inquisition was effective as a weapon against the Reformation. It has been estimated that the Church murdered an astounding 50 million human beings over the period of the Inquisition, which, shockingly, did not end until the 19th century.

Censorship was the rule for the 600-year history of the Inquisition. Pope Paul IV is the Pontiff who created the Index of Forbidden Books, and anyone caught in possession of any of the books listed on that Index could be subject to ex-communication, horrendous torture and painful death. This Index of Forbidden Books was not abolished until the year 1966.

So, it is quite clear why the only understanding that humanity had about the crucifixion was the one given to it by the Church. And it simply was not even possible, as you can see from the above history, that anyone, even though he or she may have fully known that crucifixion victims did not always die, would have even dared speculate about the possibility that Jesus Christ may have survived the crucifixion. [incidentally, the Church has re-named the Inquisition as the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One can only hope that humanity will never again see 600 years of oppression from any religious institution—Christian or otherwise—claiming to be acting “in the name of God.” It is a great blessing we have, in this modern age, to be able to obtain any kind of information that we wish, no matter its level of controversy].

But what happened to Jesus Christ? We are fortunate to live in modern times, when science and the field of medicine lend us powerful tools of analysis, as well as a language of medical and scientific terminology. These things even allow us to determine what may have occurred physiologically to Jesus Christ during and, assuming he survived the crucifixion, even after his ordeal on the cross. [Later, we will quote Joe Zias of the Century One Foundation, in which he demonstrates that crucifixion was a torture that often lasted for days].

We are even more fortunate that Dr. Trevor Davies, former (and now retired) personal physician to the Queen of England, has offered his expert medical opinion regarding what might have occurred to Jesus physiologically during and after the crucifixion, concluding that Jesus could not have died on the cross, and that he survived the crucifixion. Dr. Davies and his wife, Margaret, herself a theological scholar, teamed up to write an article entitled, “Resurrection or resuscitation” for the globally prestigious, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London. We will only present his hypothesis and conclusion, which he offered at the end of the article, though the entire document is well worth reading.

In our view, one could not find a more perfect team—a prestigious medical doctor and a theological scholar—to evaluate the Biblical verses describing the passion of Jesus Christ. What is even more powerful is the fact that the Davies are Christians. Yet, as you will read in Dr. Davies’ conclusion, he believes that Christians should be willing to accept “proven knowledge,” no matter the theological ramifications.

Dr. Davies’ article begins with an analysis of the crucifixion scene. It then covers various theories regarding how Jesus died. And then, finally, it offers his hypothesis, which we present below. Any emphasis is ours:

“Hypothesis”

“All condemned persons were flogged but they were not so weakened as to be unable to carry the patibulum. The strong presumption is that the abuse Jesus received at the Praetorium rendered him unable to carry out a task which other condemned persons were able to perform. This additional abuse, including the blow to the head, accounted for his early collapse on the Cross. At his crucifixion, Jesus was in shock and hypotensive, and lost consciousness because of diminished blood supply to the brain. His ashen skin and immobility were mistaken for death and there is no doubt that the bystanders believed he was dead. The cry (and there is little agreement about what may have been said) may not have been any more than a loud expiration preceding syncope. Oxygen supply to the brain remained minimal, but above a critical level, until the circulation was restored when he was taken down from the Cross and laid on the ground. Chill during the eclipse of the sun helped to maintain the blood pressure. As Jesus showed signs of life he was not placed in a tomb (which may have been the intention to avoid burial rites on the Sabbath) but taken away and tended...”

“Conclusion”

“The abuse meted out to Jesus in the Praetorium led to his collapse and early removal from the Cross, and to resuscitation. Individual and corporate suggestibility among the disciples and the women explains the reports of subsequent appearances. This hypothesis accepts the historical events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus but explains what happened in the light of modern knowledge. “Faith does not require the abandonment of thought or the assent to the concepts not scientifically acceptable. The Church will be stronger if it accommodates proven knowledge with its creeds. If it does not, all that is left is blind belief, far beyond the credulity of most people.”

Dr. Davies’ analysis is quite fascinating. But what puzzles me is the following. While he clearly states that, in his opinion, Jesus survived the crucifixion and was attended to, he then suggests, in later parts of the article which are not quoted above, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and followers after the event of the cross were attributable to “transmarginal inhibition, a state of activity of the brain in which hysterical suggestibility (or alternatively counter-suggestibility) frequently occurs.” While we certainly cannot deny the existence of such a phenomenon, we don’t understand why this necessarily means that Jesus did not appear to his followers physically. After all, since Dr. Davies clearly believes that Jesus survived the crucifixion, why then is it not possible that he met his followers physically? He introduces a psychological or even mystical element into what was otherwise a physiological analysis. If Jesus Christ physically survived the crucifixion, then most certainly it is possible that he physically met his followers after the event of the cross.

Examination of Biblical passages in support of survival theory

Jonas and Jesus

“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Master, we would see a sign from thee.’ But he answered and said unto them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”

Christians refer to the above passage of the Bible to demonstrate Jesus’ confidence that, in his capacity as the Son of God, he would rise from the dead after his crucifixion. In the view of Christianity, this prophecy is one of the various Biblical signs that establish the truth of Jesus Christ. Well, how could Jesus Christ have known that he would come out of the “heart of the earth” after being buried in the open and airy tomb of Joseph of Arimathea? Whether he was the Son of God, as Christians believe, or a prophet, as Muslims believe, or an enlightened Buddha, as Buddhists believe, if it is assumed that he was some kind of great, spiritually endowed person, then it is not surprising that he may have received some kind of premonition or even direct verbal revelation from God that he would be “resurrected.”

The parallels that are always drawn between the Biblical account of Jonas’ three days in the belly of a whale and Jesus’ three days in the open and airy Garden Tomb are two: First, the fact that the time elapsed in both Biblical events was three days; second, the fact that both Jonas and Jesus escaped their confinement after three days. But there is another parallel: Jonas came out of the belly of the whale alive. Since Jesus Christ is reported, in the New Testament, to have drawn this parallel, must we also conclude that just as Jonas came out of the belly of the whale alive, so Jesus came out of “the heart of the earth” alive? Christian doctrine, of course, would state that Jesus was “alive,” but that he had a special body that was both human and Divine. Of course, most of humanity is not Christian. So, it is quite legitimate for non-Christians to examine the Biblical texts and draw their own conclusions. Even Christians may want to take a second look.

Before continuing, we feel it necessary to say the following. Agnostics, atheists, and religious skeptics would view this use of the Bible to examine alternative possibilities surrounding the events of the crucifixion as meaningless, if not absolutely ridiculous. They would point out that since the Bible contains many questionable verses, and since the compilation of the Bible is to be held highly suspect, that it is a totally unreliable document. As such, the use of the Bible as a reference book would be deemed by them to be wasted exercise.

We do not believe that. One of the things that can lend weight to any document is whether or not the information in it can be found duplicated elsewhere in other documents, or whether or not the information can somehow be corroborated. In fact, one of the charges made by atheists, agnostics, mythicists [people who believe that Jesus Christ never even existed], and skeptics is that since the events of Jesus’ life as recorded in the bible—particularly the Resurrection and the Ascension—cannot be corroborated by historical documents written at the time, then the Biblical account of Jesus Christ must be either false, embellished or pure myth. For instance, Acharya S, a mythicist and author of The Christ Conspiracy, says:

“Despite this fact, however, there are basically no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’ purported advent.” [Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy (Kempton: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999), p. 49]

But we contend that the reason one can examine the Bible for evidence of the historical Jesus is that, contrary to what mythicists claim, non-Biblical evidence does exist to support not only the existence of Jesus Christ, but his survival from the crucifixion and his subsequent travels to Kashmir. Of course, mythicists do not, for whatever reasons, seem to wish to study the books of the East, such as the Bhavishya Mahapurana (see later), written in 115 A.D. when Jesus is said to have been still alive, which clearly mentions the sojourn of Jesus Christ to Kashmir, and his meeting with King Shalivahana in the year 78 A.D.

Obviously, since non-Christian documents do exist that record that Jesus Christ lived long after the crucifixion, then a reexamination of the Bible becomes necessary and is also a very legitimate exercise. In reexamining the Bible, you find that the Biblical evidence itself clearly supports the idea that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion, just as it is stated in many books of the East. What is that Biblical evidence? We’ll first examine Biblical verses that lead to the conclusion that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Then we’ll cover the documents and evidence from the East.

Pilate at Antonia

And now when the even [evening] was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honorable counselor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marveled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.”

Perhaps the most intriguing idea put forth by some of the proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory is the notion that Pontius Pilate was intimately involved—at every step of the way—in assuring that Jesus Christ would not die on the cross. In this view, the involvement of Pilate actually goes back to the trial of Jesus, conducted before Pilate at the castle of Antonia. It was at this trial that Pilate might have revealed his sympathy toward Jesus Christ:

“When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death...”

“And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou sayest.’ And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, ‘Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?’ And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, ‘Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?’”

There are two things to note here. First, the Biblical account claims that a custom existed that allowed people to ask for the release of a prisoner of their choosing. If we are to believe the above account, something seems curious. The “chief priests and elders of the people” had taken Jesus Christ before Pilate, specifically, as is stated in Matthew 27:1, for petitioning Pilate to put Jesus to death. Even many non-Christians are very familiar with the Biblical accounts of the absolute hatred that the scribes and Pharisees had for Jesus Christ. One can well imagine the frenzy of a crowd of Jewish priests escorting Jesus to Pilate—they wanted him dead. So what was Pilate’s reaction? After questioning Jesus (not before), he decided to take advantage of a custom and allowed the priests to choose whether they wanted Jesus or Barabbas to be released. If this account is to be believed, it most certainly must have been clear to Pilate how badly they wanted Jesus dead. Yet, after questioning Jesus, he offered to release Barabbas instead, even though it was clear to Pilate that they were extremely anxious to see Jesus executed. Was he doing this just to honor a custom? Or was he doing it in hopes that they might choose freedom for Jesus? Or perhaps he was using his wits for the purpose of gauging the degree of hatred that the priests had for Jesus. Later events suggest that Pilate, after hearing Jesus speak, was impressed, and tried to use a prevailing custom in order to avoid succumbing to the demands of the priests. The following verse might reveal Pilate’s motivation:

“For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.”

Laying aside the question of how the recorders of the Bible knew that “he knew,” [perhaps through his personal aides and spies], the above verse is quite interesting. It seems to me that although he knew the true, underlying reason—jealousy—motivating the priests, Pilate’s offer of Barabbas was his way of measuring the level of discontent against Jesus. Supposedly, Barabbas was a very notorious criminal. Yet the priests preferred that Jesus be put the death. So, the request by the Jews to free Barabbas was unusual and was Pilate’s first confirmation that the priests were unjustified in their charges. Also, any intelligent leader of any era would know what happens when a new religious and spiritual teacher enters the scene: The orthodox authorities rally against him. It is a common occurrence in religious history, and Pilate knew precisely what was happening.

“When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, ‘Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.’”

Again, laying aside the question how the Biblical writers knew that Pilate’s wife had had this conversation with Pilate, We’ll examine the above Biblical account. To fully appreciate the above verse, one must understand the times. The Romans, though fierce conquerors and powerful rulers, were also very superstitious. So it is quite believable that Pilate was startled by his wife’s dream. He had stood before an extraordinary man. He knew perfectly well why the Jewish priests were scheming to execute Jesus. He had heard of Jesus and his profound teachings, as well as Jesus’ constant admonishment of the priest class; he had heard of the jealously and envy of the priests against Jesus. Finally, there stood The Man—Jesus. It must have been a powerful experience. So, is it difficult to believe that the superstitious Pilate would have done all in his power to help Jesus? This becomes clear later when we see that he washed his hands as a sign indicating not only that he was removing himself from the matter and giving Jesus over to the priests, but also of his belief in Jesus’ innocence.

“But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask [for] Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, ‘Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?’ They said, ‘Barabbas.’ Pilate saith unto them, ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ They all said unto him, ‘Let him be crucified! And the governor said, ‘Why? What evil hath he done?’ But they cried out the more, saying, ‘Let him be crucified!’”

Did Pilate ask the question, “Why, what evil hath he done?” because he was ignorant of the charges against Jesus Christ? Obviously he did not. He knew full well what those charges were. So why did he ask the question? He asked for the obvious reason that he did not agree that Jesus Christ had done anything wrong. Many of us have been in situations where we’ve asked that same question about someone who was going to be punished—even if only a child for some minor infraction—for something that the person either did not do or which did not merit any punishment. One can almost hear the plaintive tone in Pilate’s voice. He did not believe the charges against Jesus, and he did not believe that Jesus had done anything wrong. So why didn’t he use his rank and dismiss the crowd? Because the Roman Empire followed a policy dictating that it would not interfere in the religious customs of the people it governed.

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.’ Then answered all the people, and said, ‘His blood be on us, and on our children.’”

Here Pilate openly stated, according to this Biblical account, that he did not want to be responsible for the execution of a “just person.” He reluctantly handed Jesus over to the people. It seems that this episode at Antonia set the stage for the next significant decision by Pilate—his setting of the time of the execution of Jesus Christ.

Pilate sets the time of the Crucifixion

“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he is to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

Did Pilate purposely set the execution time to interfere with Jewish religious law as outlined in Deuteronomy? In the eyes of the Jewish priests, it would have been a huge violation of Jewish religious law to allow Jesus to hang on the cross once the Sabbath had begun. Pilate set the time of execution close enough to the Sabbath so that Jesus would not hang on the cross long enough to die. At the approach of the Sabbath, Jesus would have to be removed from the cross.

But why would he do this? You saw earlier that Pilate was very reluctant to hand Jesus over to the priests to be put the death. He also openly expressed his belief that Jesus was an innocent man. One does not have to assume that he was devoid of human sympathy simply because he was a bureaucrat of a powerful and feared empire. Also, the Biblical narrative states that Pilate was fully aware that the prime motive—jealousy—for the priests’ desire to execute Jesus was an unworthy one. And perhaps most important, his wife had had a frightening dream and had informed Pilate that he should not be involved in the matter at all. And, of course, Pilate washed his hands of the matter. It certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility that Pilate, using his authority, purposely set the time of the execution so that Jesus would have a chance to survive.

Mark states that Jesus was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15: 25). Mark and Matthew state that Jesus died on the cross at the ninth hour (Mark 15: 33-37). So, according to them, Jesus remained on the cross for six hours. But Luke claims that Jesus died at the sixth hour (Luke 23: 44-46), which means that he would have been on the cross for only three hours.

Dr. Fida Hassnain (A Search for the Historical Jesus) is of the opinion that Jesus may have been placed on the cross at the sixth hour. It appears that he is more convinced of the account offered in the book, Crucifixion by an Eye Witness, which claims that Jesus died on the ninth hour and had been on the cross for three hours. It seems that Dr. Hassnain’s attempt is to place the time of Jesus’ “death” closer to the approaching Sabbath. Perhaps in his view this would better demonstrate the sense of urgency in the need of the Jews to take the body of Jesus down from the cross before the Shabbat so that Jewish law would not be broken, as well as Pilate’s collusion in this matter. Hassnain states:

“During ancient times, among the Jews, a day was counted from sunrise, so the third hour could be 9 am, the sixth hour 12 noon and the ninth hour 3 pm. Taking together the information given in the Gospels, I would be inclined to chalk out the events of the day as follows:

“9 am (third hour): the case against Jesus presented before Pilate. Discussions until the sixth hour (12 noon) when final orders were given;

“12 noon (sixth hour): Jesus was put on the cross at Golgotha;

“3 pm (ninth hour): Jesus Christ was taken for dead and was allowed to be taken down from the cross. Thus it seems possible that Jesus remained on the cross for three hours only, because it was both the day before the Sabbath and also the day of preparation for the Passover.”

In summary, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Pontius Pilate purposely set the time of crucifixion in a way that would assure Jesus’ survival after his removal from the cross before the Sabbath. In fact, the Biblical verse we presented earlier, “And Pilate marveled that he were already dead,” shows that Pilate understood that Jesus should not have died so quickly, because he was very surprised when the Centurion told him that Jesus had died. And if, as some believe, Jesus had merely been unconscious, it is possible that he may still have been alive when he was taken down from the cross.

Pilate and the Centurion?

“The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.”

There does not exist a single record, that we know of, documenting a collusion between Pilate and the Centurion. So although we realize that the suggestion of collusion might be labeled speculation, We’ll examine that possibility. Did Pilate issue advance orders to the Centurion instructing him not to break the bones of Jesus? The actions of this Centurion are puzzling. The Bible documents the actions of the Centurions who were on the scene as nothing least than beastly. Jesus Christ had been treated with deep contempt. He had been beaten, crowned with a crown of thorns, mocked and abused. So whether or not Jesus was “dead already,” why should it be believed that the Centurion suddenly adopted some sense of morality and decided to leave the poor corpse alone? Why wouldn’t he have broken the bones anyway out of sheer brutality and the bloodlust of the moment? Also, did the breaking of the bones really ensure that the victim would soon die as a result of suffocation, as popularly believed? [More on that later when we examine a college experiment performed in modern times].

How could the Centurion have believed that Jesus was dead, when the very next verse states that to “ensure” that he was dead, the Centurion “pierced” his side? Well if the reason he did not break his bones was because he was dead, then why pierce the side? If he pierced the side because he wanted to be certain that Jesus was dead, then why not break the bones also to be doubly sure?

Supposedly, the breaking of the bones was meant to ensure that the victim would die, as this breaking removed the support the victim had had from his lower body, thus causing him to sink downwards, crushing his lungs with his ribcage. Who was the Centurion?

Kersten on Longius

I’d like to reproduce a lengthy passage from Holger Kersten’s book, The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth about the Resurrection. Kersten offers background on the soldier who spared Jesus’ legs. Referring to the identity of this soldier, Kersten states:

“In the apocryphal Acta Pilata he is called Longinus and presented as the captain who supervised the Crucifixion. According to a tradition testified to by Gregory of Nyssa, Longinus was said to have later become a bishop in his Cappadocian homeland. This change of heart may mean that he had some connection with Jesus and his followers before the Crucifixion, or was even a secret follower of Jesus. This would make many of the problems about the events during the Crucifixion understandable. Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and the centurion Longinus were among the secret followers of Jesus. Since they held influential positions, they were informed well enough in advance about what the revolutionary exposure of Jesus was leading to.

“Joseph was highly respected as a member of the Sanhedrin. Since the second century BC this had been the high council of the supreme Jewish authorities for all affairs of state, judicature and religion. It consisted of seventy members under the chairmanship of the high priest. Nicodemus, who was initiated by Jesus under cover of night (John 3: 1-22), was also a Jewish Councilor. Thanks to their positions Joseph and Nicodemus had surely been kept well informed about the time and place of the execution and were thus able to plan the rescue of their master. We hear an echo of the advance information given to Nicodemus in a highly revered hagiographical legend of the Middle Ages. It tells how Nicodemus, in a letter sent to Mary Magdalene, warned Jesus about the attack by the Jews, when he was in Ephraim (John 11:53f)

“Joseph and Nicodemus knew the Crucifixion itself could not be avoided. But if they could manage to take Jesus down from the cross early enough, and everything was well planned, it would be possible to keep him alive, and he would probably be able to continue his mission unobserved. It was crucially important to the whole operation that the apostles were not involved. They had gone into hiding for fear of persecution. Nothing would be done against the respected councilors Joseph and Nicodemus or the Roman centurion. So for a limited period there was a chance that the daring operation could be carried out.”

Let’s examine the issue of the lance that was “thrust” into Jesus’ side and the question of the vinegar that was given to him, after which he “gave up the ghost.” Kersten (p. 249) points out that the original Greek word for the thrust by the soldier is nyssein. That word does not suggest a forceful thrust. The word means a light scratch, or a light puncture of the skin. This was considered a test designed to determine if the victim was actually dead. If the victim showed no reaction to this light stabbing, then it was assumed that the victim had died. The second issue has to do with the vinegar given to Jesus by the Centurion:

“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 received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished’: and he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost.”

Did the vinegar contain some kind of opiate? Opium was well known to Jews at that time. Was the vinegar purposely brought to the crucifixion scene by the supporters of Jesus, particularly Joseph and Nicodemus, to serve two purposes: first, to act as a painkiller; second, to render Jesus unconscious?

On Dying on the Cross

Joe Zias, of the Century One Foundation, observes the following in his piece, “Crucifixion in Antiquity—The Evidence”:

“A series of experiments carried out by an American medical examiner and pathologist on college students [F.T. Zugibe, 1984: “Death by Crucifixion”, Canadian Society of Forensic Science 17(1):1-13.6.] who volunteered to be tied to crosses, showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing. Thus the often-quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched. According to the physiological response of the students, which was closely monitored by Zugibe, death in this manner is the result of the victim going into hypovolemic shock. Death in this manner can be in a manner of hours, or days depending on the manner in which the victim is affixed to the cross. If the victim is crucified with a small seat, a sedile, affixed to the upright for minimum support in the region of the buttocks, death can be prolonged for hours and days. In fact, Josephus reports that three friends of his were being crucified in Thecoa by the Romans who, upon intervention by Josephus to Titus were removed from the crosses and with medical care one survived.”

Newsweek Magazine reported the following:

“In most cases, the experts think, death on the cross came within a span of several hours to a day or more, either from loss of blood or from suffocation as the victim’s rib cage collapsed over his diaphragm.”

So there is no question that it is possible to survive a crucifixion. Stroud claimed that in former times, in Central Africa, crucifixion victims would live as long as three days on the cross before finally expiring.

And as is reported each and every year through UPI (United Press International) and API (Associated Press International), during Easter celebrations in the Philippines, actual crucifixions occur and are conducted by overly-devout Christians whose intentions are to atone for their sins. Most of the victims remain on the cross for only a few minutes, and throughout the ceremonies antibacterial agents are administered to prevent infection. But it is claimed that some of the crucifixion victims avoid these more public celebrations and opt for a deeper experience (in remoter areas), actually remaining on the cross for several days before authorities finally discover them, take them down, send them to a hospital for treatment and recovery, then charging them with something akin to disorderly conduct. The account in Stroud’s book claims that such victims can remain alive for days.

While one might register a doubt as to whether or not someone would have himself nailed to a cross for several days, those of you unfamiliar with the Philippine crucifixions probably would have thought, before reading this link, that no one would have himself or herself crucified period, whether for four minutes or three days. So it is quite possible that the rumored Philippine crucifixions that are alleged to take place out of the sight of the authorities involve people who survive the crucifixion for days.

In general, ancient crucifixions were not meant for quick death, but for prolonged torture. The cross was sometimes affixed with various wooden attachments that would allow the weight of the victim to be supported so that he would not die quickly, but slowly. One such device was known as the suppedaneum. The victim would actually stand on this wooden platform. Another was the sedile. This was a wooden attachment on which the victim could sit. As the philosopher Seneca, Nero’s personal secretary, stated: “The life of the person thus sentenced trickled away drop by drop.”

Jewish Burial practices--A Short but powerful note

“And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”

We contacted, via email, the Shema Israel Torah Network International Burial Society and asked them the following question:

“Have Jewish burial customs changed much in 2000 years? The Bible claims that Jesus was covered with some kind of ointment [i think the Bible says 100 pounds weight of some kind of substance—seems to be quite a lot of weight]. Does that Biblical account actually fall in line with Jewish burial traditions? Because I thought I heard that it was forbidden to touch the body. Could you be so kind as to explain? Thank you.”

We present below the email response We received from Mr. Fishel a member of that society. Any emphasis is Mr. Todd’s:

“Jewish Burial Law, along with the rest of TRADITIONAL JEWISH LAW has not changed in 2000 years [but more] precisely, 3500 years. You’re right: the body is not to be touched except by giving it a ritual bath called a TAHARA, standing for purity and then the body is put in the ground in the quickest most simple fashion available with only traditional BURIAL SHROUDS.”

For what reason did Nicodemus take a mixture of myrrh and aloes—a full one hundred pounds—to Joseph of Arimathea’s open and airy tomb, not in the manner which the Jews bury their dead, as the last phrase of the verse wrongly contends? Though he may have wound the body of Jesus in linen clothes with spices, it certainly was not to bury a dead man, because no such custom ever existed, according to Mr. Fishel Todd of the Shema Israel Torah Network International Burial Society. If the Biblical account is true, then it is obvious that Nicodemus carried those herbs to the scene for the purpose of applying them to Jesus’ wounds, so that he would be healed. Kersten states:

“The theologian Paul Billerbeck makes the event appear as if an embalming was to take place with the aromatic substances added to oil. But the Rabbinical texts refer only to an oiling of the bodies of the departed. The addition of spices is nowhere mentioned, let alone in these quantities, and was never part of Jewish custom; nor was embalming. Moreover it would be pointless to perform the embalming in the way described. One would have had to remove the entrails to stop the decomposition gases from bursting the body; an incision which would be extremely repulsive to the Jews, and the substances applied would not have served this purpose on their own...”

After the Crucifixion

“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, ‘Why seek ye the living among the dead?’”

When the women came to the tomb, they encountered two individuals who asked a simple question: Why are you here looking for a living person at a burial site? Let’s examine another verse:

“And he said unto them, ‘Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.’ And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, ‘Have ye here any meat?’ And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them”

In order to convince the Disciples that he had survived the crucifixion, Jesus asked them to realize that spirits or ghosts or apparitions are not composed of human flesh and human bones. To make his point firmly, he asked them for a piece of meat. They gave him fish and a honeycomb, and he ate in front of them while they watched. The question becomes: What was the need for a supernatural divinity, a supernatural god, or God Himself, to eat food? Aside from his attempts to assure them that they were not seeing an apparition, it is most probable that Jesus was extremely hungry, having gone through pure hell in being beaten and nailed to a cross.

Christians are bound by the doctrine that defines Jesus as both man and God. They view his post-crucifixion appearance as the appearance of this dual being. Non-Christians are not bound by religious faith to believe that Jesus was a special, supernatural being. When one reads the verses above without the condition of religious faith, then those verses become clear and simple, and they demonstrate one reality: Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion.

theist · August 26, 2003

Couldn't even read it Priitaa, sorry. Just not attracted to this sort of speculation from the materialists. Did read the last paragraph though, quoted below.

Christians are bound by the doctrine that defines Jesus as both man and God. They view his post-crucifixion appearance as the appearance of this dual being. Non-Christians are not bound by religious faith to believe that Jesus was a special, supernatural being. When one reads the verses above without the condition of religious faith, then those verses become clear and simple, and they demonstrate one reality: Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion.

Priitaa · August 26, 2003

Thiest,

Everything he quotes, he does not necessarily believe. Sometimes he quotes facts, what "they" believe, for example. Or what science believes, or what 'modern religion' teaches, etc.

In that quote, I think he was pointing out that when freed from misunderstood Xtian fundamentalism, that helped to find the facts, not that he liked the idea.

I know some of it initially sounds unusual or even nonChirt, but it is not nonChrist at all. It may be against modern day concocted Christianity, but not against Christ. I got to know the author online and he is a very VERY strong believer in Jesus. He explained that his entire purpose of his site is to prove that Jesus survived and moved to Inida! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Therefore, I made msyelf read thru it. While I dont agree with it all, I found if I gave it a chance or time (I admit it takes time which I often dont have much of), but then some of it made sense or I agreed with more. But not all. It didn't matter once I realized his purpose was pure. Hope this explains things.

Priitaa · August 26, 2003

I hadn't realize exactly how long that post was. I knew it was long, but not THAT much. Sorry.

August 26, 2003

In response to:

_____

Devotee: Prabhupäda? Does Lord Jesus Christ appear in the spiritual sky with the body he manifested on the earth?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Otherwise how there can be resurrection? Ordinary body cannot be resurrected. He appeared in his spiritual body, certainly. Jesus Christ told, if I remember, that “Lord, excuse these persons,” who were crucifying him. Is it not? He knew that “These rascals, they are killing me, but... They are offending certainly. So they do not know that I cannot be killed, but they are thinking that they are killing.” You see? But that was offensive, therefore he begged Lord to be excused because God cannot excuse to the offenders of the devotee. He can excuse one who is offender to God, but if somebody is offender to the devotee, God never excuses. Therefore he prayed for them. That is devotee’s qualification. He prays for everyone, even of his enemy. And he could not be killed. That he knew. But those rascals, they thought they were killing Jesus Christ.-Lec. Bg 4.16 LA Jan 3, 1969 "

_______

Let me take this statement that obviously a product or opinion by Prabhupada:

"Jesus Christ told, if I remember, that “Lord, excuse these persons,” who were crucifying him. Is it not? He knew that “These rascals, they are killing me, but... They are offending certainly."

You see the words..."if I remember" it means Prabhupada is not sure of what he was talking about. He was obviously not that well informed or had done a thorough research about Jesus and with the scriptures in the Bible.

Therefore: Prabhupada is like Pilate

John 18:33 - Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

John 18:34 - Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 - Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

****What he was talking about were never the words that came from the mouth of Jesus...“These rascals, they are killing me, but... They are offending certainly. So they do not know that I cannot be killed, but they are thinking that they are killing.”

Jesus never said that.

Maybe Prabhupada missed out this lines of the Lord: "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS."

Matthew 19:18 - He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

"THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS."

Sign In

Lord Jesus did not resurrect

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post