Did Jesus Die?

[turienzo's lovechild]

yeah i reckon thats DEFINITELY true


i reckon he was one of those geekey guys that gets all the girls because he's FIT but just a bit a bit of a loner


either that or he was one of the really sporty kids at school, who all the boys wanted to be, and all the girls wanted to be with

 

[Les Biehn]

yeah i reckon thats DEFINITELY true


i reckon he was one of those geekey guys that gets all the girls because he's FIT but just a bit a bit of a loner


either that or he was one of the really sporty kids at school, who all the boys wanted to be, and all the girls wanted to be with

I reckon you're right Thomas. Maybe a combination of the two. Read a lot of philosophy and shit but could also controlled things in the centre of midfield. Like Camus but religious and immortal.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

basically he's turienzo isn't he

 

[SussexSpur]

Well if he didn't he'd have given himself one. Regilion to me is the biggest load of shit and evil in the world today.

As Derek & Clive said, if Jesus was human why didn't they report in the bible that he had a crap. If he had a slash why wasn't it reported. If he had a poop why wasn't in down (in the bible). It's all a load of bollox. Accept it when you die you die. No heaven. No hell. Just rotting to look forward to.

Well, quite. You can keep your philosophers, or gospellers, or Heroditus and Leviticus and them all...

CLIVE:
Well, if he didn't get the horn, then he wasn't human, was he?
DEREK:
No, right.
CLIVE:
And they say he was half human and half God .....
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
..... but which half was human? I bet it was the bottom half.
DEREK:
Mmm.
CLIVE:
The God bit was on the top and, er, the human bit had the horn.
DEREK:
Right.
CLIVE:
I bet the God bit stopped at his navel .....
DEREK:
Mmm, mmm.
CLIVE:
..... and he had the human horn bit underneath.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
So he could be wandering around feeling all nice and saying, "I'm God", up here, you see, but down below-, I suppose his hand would be below, wouldn't it?
DEREK:
Depends. He cou-
CLIVE:
His arm would start off as God and then become man as it reached about the wrist.
DEREK:
Probably, yeah, the wrist.
CLIVE:
So he could be wanking himself silly, all the time his brain was saying he's being, er, good and holy, you know.

CLIVE:
"Love thy neighbour as thyself", .....
DEREK:
I think-, I think .....
CLIVE:
..... it's more, "Love thy neighbour, I don't half fancy her too" and rushing round for a quick one!

 

[Les Biehn]

basically he's turienzo isn't he

Spot on. Imagine El Turi looking up from the symposium as he heads in his hat-trick. Thats Jesus.

 

[The Large One]

Great. A serious theory on which to launch an interesting and stimulating thoelogical deabte, and it's hijacked by the children on here who want to talk about willies.

I don't know why I bother.

 

[Les Biehn]

Great. A serious theory on which to launch an interesting and stimulating thoelogical deabte, and it's hijacked by the children on here who want to talk about willies.

I don't know why I bother.

because you love a good chat about messianic cock.

 

[Mr Burns]

as thyself", .....
DEREK:
I think-, I think .....
CLIVE:
..... it's more, "Love thy neighbour, I don't half fancy her too" and rushing round for a quick one!

CLIVE:
What a load of f***ing cobblers that is, isn't it? But there was one bit of the Bible I, erm, think was cut out.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
Er, it was just after the Devil had been tempting him .....
DEREK:
Oh-h, yeah.
CLIVE:
..... and, er, the bit that was cut out said, er, "And Jesus suddenly-", no, it said, "And lo! .....
DEREK:
"The Devil had the horn."
CLIVE:
No, no it said, "And lo! Jesus suddenly got the horn and wandered out of the Garden of Gethsemane and f***ed himself stupid for twenty-eight years." And that bit got left out 'cause, erm, I think it was Matthew thought it would be a bad idea, bad for the image.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
When of course, in my book, it makes him more understandable.
DEREK:
Oh yeah, makes him more human. Oh, well that's wrong, isn't it? Yeah.
CLIVE:
No, makes the bottom half human, that's normal.
DEREK:
Yeah, yeah.
CLIVE:
And the top half God.
DEREK:
Yeah, yeah.
CLIVE:
They say his right hand didn't know what his left hand was doing.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
Well, I know what his left hand was doing, the same as his right hand.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
f***ing encouraging the horn.
DEREK:
Scratching, mate.
CLIVE:
But they don't-, they cut bits out of the Bible, like it never says Jesus got athlete's foot .....
DEREK:
Well, they never gave-
CLIVE:
..... from wandering around in the desert.
DEREK:
Does it ever sa-, does it ever say .....
CLIVE:
Does it mention it? Does it say, "And lo! Jesus was stricken with athlete's foot"? Is that in? No, it's f***ing out, .....
DEREK:
And .....
CLIVE:
..... 'cause it doesn't fit in, does it? .....
DEREK:
..... did it ever say .....
CLIVE:
..... With a picture of this holy xxxx wandering round telling people to be good.
DEREK:
Did it ever say, "And lo! Jesus had a wee-wee"? No.
CLIVE:
No.
DEREK:
Nowhere.
CLIVE:
Are we to assume that Jesus, throughout his brief life, never had a piss? And if-, if he did have a piss, why wasn't it f***ing reported? Did he have a crap, why wasn't it down? Why didn't Paul say, "And Jesus went into the temple, had a piss, had a crap, wiped his arse with the money-changers," and, er, put in all the stuff which would make him human instead of all this shit about saying, "Take up thy bed and walk," to some xxxx who's probably perfectly happy begging?
DEREK:
Right.
CLIVE:
Makes you f***ing sick.
DEREK:
Well, he's probably be-, he's probably been, er, misreported. When he said, "Take up thy bed and walk," he said, "Where's the f***ing bog? .....
CLIVE:
Yeah.
DEREK:
..... I'm dying for a slash!"
CLIVE:
That's what he probably said.
DEREK:
Probably what he said, not .....
CLIVE:
But .....
DEREK:
..... "take up thy bed and f***ing walk."
CLIVE:
..... he'd have said it in Hebrew, which is difficult .....
DEREK:
Who-, who-, I mean, who would have said that? "Take up thy bed and walk", it's a-, it's a giveaway.
CLIVE:
That-
DEREK:
"Where's the f***ing bog, I'm dying, mate!" That's what it was.
CLIVE:
"Love thy neighbour as thyself", .....
DEREK:
I think-, I think .....
CLIVE:
..... it's more, "Love thy neighbour, I don't half fancy her too" and rushing round for a quick one!
DEREK:
(laughs)
CLIVE:
(lights a cigarette) He was a human being.
DEREK:
Oh, well, you can't blame him, can you?
CLIVE:
No, of course you can't.
DEREK:
Had an image-, had an image, mate. He had-, he had to, you know, preserve it. Just think of it, .....

 

[SussexSpur]

Great. A serious theory on which to launch an interesting and stimulating thoelogical deabte, and it's hijacked by the children on here who want to talk about willies.

I don't know why I bother.

Okay, okay.
Of course, there's that claim He came to England after his supposed death, one of the very first hippies to wend their way Glastonbury-wards. Though admittedly that does seem to be based more in the realms of wishful thinking on the part of some, than based on any evidence, certainly not enough to get a lengthy-ish TV discussion slot...
Though Blake was certainly interested, and inspired enough to write the words given such a rousing setting for "Jerusalem", even if, on closer inquiry, the lyrics basically amount to a series of questions, each of which invites the answer: "Er, no, probably not..."

Scorsese's "The Last Temptation Of Christ" is a fascinating film, it feels for much of the later stages as if it's quite a daring, traditionalist-provoking challenge, positing Jesus's "wimping-out" of crucifixion, settling down for, well, sex and other domestic comfort with Mary Magdalene, and the scene where Saul/Paul is presented as a very base, cynical, crowd-exploiting huckster.
Only to suddenly (actually, have just thought - spoiler alert, anyone remotely concerned, though I'm sure you know how the Bible ends anyway....)











Suddenly jolted back to Christ on the cross, having pondered the whole reverie of how his life might be should he only reject the proffered "calling" - but going for glorious death instead...
Should really read up much more of the most rigorous, historical-document-scouring for the actual evidence - and interpretations - which have lasted, beyond the familiar narratives passed down in Sunday school, even close-ish scrutiny of the Bible but not any surrouding, surviving documents...

Fascinating, though... if a viper's nest you've surely opened, TLO.
Whether you quite expected the turn the debate would take quite so quickly, mind... Actually, probably a half-decent chance...


Will keep an eye out for any repeats of that programme now.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Great. A serious theory on which to launch an interesting and stimulating thoelogical deabte, and it's hijacked by the children on here who want to talk about willies.

I don't know why I bother.

I'm impressed by the apparent willingness of some NSC members to believe ANYTHING.

As long as it's not serious.

And I guess they can get pretty scornful about people who take a different view of life, the universe and everything.

 

[The Large One]

One theological historian on the programme, who said he had been brought up a Catholic, was told NOT to read the Holy Bible. Why? Because, he said, each document telling Jesus Christ's life was largely inconsistent with the next document.

Instead, the priests would preach it to them. Or rather tell their own interpretation of the story for their own means.

 

[Juan Albion]

One theological historian on the programme, who said he had been brought up a Catholic, was told NOT to read the Holy Bible. Why? Because, he said, each document telling Jesus Christ's life was largely inconsistent with the next document.

Instead, the priests would preach it to them. Or rather tell their own interpretation of the story for their own means.

That's a bit of a leap. While I could never personally justify (or even understand) encouraging anyone not to read the Bible for themselves, I think he is coming to conclusions for his own means. He has taken a possible fact and attributed his own motive to it. He sounds like he has a grudge, for sure, which is rarely a good basis for scholarly work.

It could just as easily (and more likely, in my opinion) be a recognition that the Bible is in fact a fairly complicated document and, typically, priests have undertaken much more detailed study of the original text, the historical background and the theological tradition than many lay people. In a way, they have a point, although I would consider it terribly arrogant. I would agree, though, that many of the problems with extreme fundamentalists is that they don't really understand what they are reading and take it at what seems to them in the 20th/21st century like face value but which in fact is a misrepresentation of what was intended by the author. Whatever, it is a leap of logic to say the motive was "for their own means."

What I know for sure is that I can't think a better way to persuade someone to read something than by telling them they mustn't. It's hardly going to work, is it.

As far as the programme went, I didn't see it of course and so can't really comment much. But from what you said, it raises a few basic questions.

For example, if Jesus was revived and went to India, who revived him? One thing we do know is that James (his brother or half-brother, depending on who you ask) remained in Jerusalem as a leader of the early church, as did at least some of the disciples. Why would they do that if Jesus was alive and well in India? And if they didn't know he was alive, who went with him if his closest family and friends didn't? Could someone make the arduous journey from Jerusalem to India on their own? And with feet crippled by the nails used in a crucifixion? And, more importantly, why would he? It doesn't fit in with anything else we know of Jesus. It simply doesn't make any sense.

We also have the fact that we have writings from the early church that were written while this theory says Jesus was still alive in India. Again, that wouldn't make much sense. There is, however, a long tradition that says the apostle Thomas took the Christian message to India.

Also remember that no TV producer worth his/her salt is going to produce a programme like this without presenting it in a way that makes it sound convincing - it's what they do. And just because someone says they are a historian/theologian does not mean that they have any real scholarly standing.

With the approaching release of The DaVinci Code (which may be great novel/film, I don't know, but is apparently either factually naive or wrong or deceitful) there will be more and more of these hokey theories being presented. Of course theologians have been discussing most of these for years and they are hardly new. Most have been rubbished by real scholars. If there was any factual content, you can bet someone in the Jesus Seminar would have found it.

 

[The Large One]

For example, if Jesus was revived and went to India, who revived him? One thing we do know is that James (his brother or half-brother, depending on who you ask) remained in Jerusalem as a leader of the early church, as did at least some of the disciples. Why would they do that if Jesus was alive and well in India? And if they didn't know he was alive, who went with him if his closest family and friends didn't? Could someone make the arduous journey from Jerusalem to India on their own? And with feet crippled by the nails used in a crucifixion? And, more importantly, why would he? It doesn't fit in with anything else we know of Jesus. It simply doesn't make any sense.

We also have the fact that we have writings from the early church that were written while this theory says Jesus was still alive in India. Again, that wouldn't make much sense. There is, however, a long tradition that says the apostle Thomas took the Christian message to India.

Also remember that no TV producer worth his/her salt is going to produce a programme like this without presenting it in a way that makes it sound convincing - it's what they do. And just because someone says they are a historian/theologian does not mean that they have any real scholarly standing.

OK, I think some of the question you raise were covered in the documentary. The theologians and historians they talked to were Professors from across the world.

The 'resurrection', one scholar pointed out, is a term or a word, the modern day equivalent of which would be 'resuscitation'. It was stated in the biblical text that Mary Magdelene and Joseph of Arimathea took some balms into the tomb/cave. I don't recall which ones, although they are mentioned by name. The herbs where considered 'healing' balms, rather than embalming.

Of course, assuming Jesus Christ did survive crucifixion, it was important he 'disappeared'. The Bible states he 'ascended to Heaven'. However, the film indicated he possibly followed a similar route to that which Thomas had led on the 'Spice Route' - a common trading route. There were stories that he had possibly gone to the South of France with Mary Magdelene, but this was largely dismissed because it was considered important for everyone concerned that he LEAVE the auspices of the Roman Empire. There would have dire consequences for all the Disciples if Jesus was found to be alive.

The people we know of as Jews, said one historian, were actually people born into the House of Judah, one of the 12 houses of Israel. Jesus himself was born in the House of David. Some of the houses had fled the homeland, heading east. These were known as the Lost Tribes. Some ended up in what is now known as Kashmir.

The Bible states that his Disciples (or more specifically, the Apostles) saw him after the 'resurrection', so they knew he was alive. The film stated that wherever it was Jesus went, he made sure his Disciples DID NOT follow him. They asked if they could come with him and he said NO. John wrote that he will 'come again'. This has since been possibly taken to mean his 'Second Coming'. It is possible he simply meant 'I am going away, and I will return'. But obviously, he never did.

The point is, Jesus himself still had much to teach, but he could not do it in Jerusalem. That's where the others came in, and continued his work. There is much crossover between Buddhist teaching and Christ's teaching, promoting the theory that he spent some time in India during the years where there is nothing written about him in the Bible. And (assuming you consider the film's assertion) that is where he returned to, to carry on preaching.

Don't forget, what we know of Jesus is both incomplete AND contradictory. All the director would acknowledge was, the story of Jesus going to India had a large amount of plausibility in it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The Bible also states that Jesus was fed a sponge with vinegar, after which he passed out and was then taken down. One theory I've read suggests this may have been some sort of sedative.

The large quantity of aloes, herbs and oils taken into the tomb further suggest a resuscitation, more than mere embalming.

Those who suggest that he went to Kashmir do not assert that he went straight away, more likely that he went to a safe house of one of his supporters to regain strength.

And on the subject of his cock, it was obviously large - as a carpenter he was bound to have a lot of wood

 

[Juan Albion]

Those who suggest that he went to Kashmir do not assert that he went straight away, more likely that he went to a safe house of one of his supporters to regain strength.

And then they didn't go with him? Yeah, right.

 

[Juan Albion]

BTW, some folks have been equally convinced that Jesus spent the years of his life that are not covered in the Gospels in India but returned to Jerusalem for the crucifixion.

 

[SussexSpur]

it was considered important for everyone concerned that he LEAVE the auspices of the Roman Empire. There would have dire consequences for all the Disciples if Jesus was found to be alive.

Sorry, dumb question here, but if there was this apparent assumption, plus rescitation being so apparently easy... why didn't the people crucifying him make sure they did a proper job, rather than satisfying themselves with the "mere" six-hours-on-the-cross which someone on this thread suggested was accepted as hardly fatal for a healthy-ish, young-ish man...?

 

[Pavilionaire]

If Jesus had wealthy supporters it is conceivable they could have bribed the guards to let him down.

The significant point here is that the Jewish Sabbath was about to start (sundown on a Friday) and because Jews are forbidden to do any work, i.e. tend to the dead they would have argued to get him down early to get the body into the tomb before the Sabbath started.

That, coupled with a decent bribe, might have been enough to persuade a few guards bored shitless standing under a cross to let his family have his body, then those guards could get off home early - human nature.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Read the quote from the film 'Contact' below, in my siggie thing. Nuff said.

Occam's Razor, the basic scientific principle. And it says... all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one........
So what's more likely ...that an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of its existence, or that it simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

Well the alternative to that is the a big noise made enitre civilisations. So the choice is a little closer than you give it credit for

 

[NMH]

It happened so long ago that the whole thing is a mystery clouded by time and interpretation.

Christianity is one religion among VERY MANY. The chance of it being the 'right' religion is also iffy.

Jesus needs to come on back here and prove his existence, and give me the winning lottery numbers.