More Against Jesus’ Resurrection

More Against Jesus' Resurrection

As it happens, I can’t fathom all the possibilities to account for the (probably false) data that Jesus died and then his tomb was found empty. My imagination does not stretch as far as those who have religious reasons not to accept the claim the Christians keep making, which of course the Jews and Muslims do. Following is a passage from a Muslim blogger called Paarsurrey:

“Jesus did not resurrect from the dead as he did not die on the cross in the first place; he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position; he was treated for the injuries inflicted on him on the cross secretly by his friends in the tomb of Arimathea; when he got recovered that he could travel he left Judea and traveled to India along with his mother Mary.”

This is kind of like what I said earlier today, crucifixion has a survival rate. Or even, it is an elaborate chemically-induced hoax.

Above is a picture taken in Japan. Shingo, Aomori also claims to know what happened to Jesus: he fled aged 21, became a rice farmer and lived to be 106. This is according to the Gospel of Jesus, seized by the Japanese government.

All very compelling stuff. I currently look forward to knowing why a miracle is a more likely answer to the question of how the data–the life, death and resurrection–can be correct.


11 thoughts on “More Against Jesus’ Resurrection”

    1. I suspect not. But when someone makes a promise like that this is the kind of passive chiding and clear mocking I offer.
      Go on, Prayson, explain this away… go on. Go oooooooooooooooooooon.

      1. I’ve stayed out of it because i knew it wasn’t going anywhere. Still, i’m glad you and Ark are there and i’m going to follow the “evidence” as its presented… and probably have a giggle shortly after.

  1. Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
    Paarsurrey says:

    Yes, Jesus did not resurrect from the literal or physical dead; he recovered from the near-dead.
    Jesus resurrection from the literal and physically dead is a myth carved by Paul; it has nothing to do with reality.


  2. So you are saying that a half mutilated man who was beaten, scourge, humiliated, nailed to the cross, and pierced by the side with a spear survived an ordeal like the crucifixion and still managed to get his followers who scattered in fear in the beginning to preach the gospel and die for that cause. I am no bible scholar and I don pretend to know all of the bible, but common sense tells me he died and was resurrected because the first people to see him back to life were women. Now why would they leave that tidbit of information in the bible if during that time women’s testimony was basically not taken into consideration. Why even mention that at all

    1. Ignoring that a healthy person could survive on the cross for 5 days to a week–this is why it is such horrific torture–and Jesus (after taking something that looks suspiciously like a soporific) lasted 6 hours, and ignoring these aren’t my ideas but the ideas of a Muslim blogger and a Japanese town respectively, and ignoring the fact that it was Paul that rallied the believers and not Jesus, and ignoring that the traditions of the time dictate that it must be a woman (a family woman, meaning Jesus must have been married to Mary Magdalene) that went to the tomb, and also ignoring that my post immediately previous to this outlines some other ideas… ignoring all of that… your ‘common sense’ tells you a miracle is more likely than an injured man travelling?

  3. Yes a miracle was more likely then some injured man travelling with a wife. So the assumption is that Jesus was married. why would Paul have rallied the believers when he was the one oppressing them and then converted on the road to Damascus. Paul never rallied them for it was the disciples themselves after seeing something that challenge them and change them. They didn’t even meet Paul until after Jesus died. I like the friendly debate here. I do appreciate it.

    1. It is nice to have a discussion without it descending to chaos and name calling. Although, I must say I am a little surprised that you think Paul changing his mind because he saw the risen Jesus is more likely than a natural explanation for the empty tomb (because I’m brushing over the question of whether the tomb was found empty) and what eventually got written down later (at least 3 generations later) was embellished or misremembered or evolved as an oral tale.

  4. Thanks for stopping by my blog and sharing your thoughts. Concerning this post, I don’t think presenting evidence will do you much good, because you seem to be familiar with it already. But you asked for evidence, so I’ll offer this video:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s