Did Jesus die?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I'd just like to say that my original question on did jesus die was a genuine one and I am in no way being confrontational or anything. I have come here to learn and I am dumb on various aspects and wish to discuss them with people. If I have offended in anyway I whole heartedly apologise. I thought I would ask the question after watching a documentary and reading some of the website on the tomb of jesus (the link I posted). I wanted to see what the opinion on this was, nothing more. Maybe the questions in this and my other posts have been to direct, but I have always been told "if you don't know son, then ask!" Many thanks.

Penguin, I'd like to give you a straight answer to the question of the death of Jesus, which is my own synthesized and intuited belief after many years of searching, study, and reflection. I think Jesus did die. Whether or not he happened to enter satori/samadhi temporarily - and feign bodily death - is actually quite secondary.

Let us say he did survive death. This possibility does not change the fact that as far as Rome was concerned, and in the eyes of his own people & the Sanhedrin (the priestly `elite' which wanted him out of the way), Jesus as Messiah had been silenced. As the political threat both to Rome and to Jewish tradition, there was no longer a Jesus of Nazareth. Even his own Apostles - almost uniformly - abandoned him. Peter gets the bad rap, but he was one of the few who had the ... uh, nerve ... to be hanging around at all!!! The other Apostles weren't even there, at Jesus' death, by many accounts! Only the Beloved Disicple was faithful to the very end.

So if Jesus survived, which would have been fortunate in that it would much more easily facilitate his ongoing earthly work behind the scenes (for another 50 years, esoteric tradition indicates), then this is secondary to the fact that publicly, Jesus was dead. I say this, and put the emphasis here, even though I personally do believe in a living, Risen Christ ... even in a physical presence of Jesus for those who have need of contact. All of this just takes a back seat to the "limelight factor," if you'll forgive the expression - the public image of the Piscean Savior. Not for 2100 years has Christ's work in the outer world been possible ... and if the Reappearance is a growing reality now, as I believe it is, then this is where we should really be putting our focus.

Again, I don't mean to detract from the speculation on Jesus' physical survival 2100 years ago, but I would gently suggest that in the investigation of this possibility, part of what some folks might be doing - psychologically - is attempting to resolve one or other of two obvious conflicts. One is the challenge inherent in Christian teachings (although it is actually a common element of every world religion, as ancient as man himself) - that somehow man can rise from the dead, as demonstrated by Jesus. This just plain strains some folks' tolerance for supernatural phenomena ... which amazes me, frankly, given the testimony of millions now upon the subject of Out-of-Body experiences and Near-Death experiences (the Light at the end of the tunnel, etc.). But the hardcore skeptic has a difficult time with non-material realms, and if it can be shown that Jesus didn't actually die, then perhaps that makes his message more credible, since more believable - and less mystical! I can't say more on that; I just disagree.

As for the other psychological need ... well, my guess is that it's similar. Just as Jesus is more approachable to some as an ordinary guy who had learned a few tricks and could "cheat death" - perhaps it's easier to integrate his Ministry into the picture of evolving world religions, with every bit as much respect as all other Saviors, but without such focus on blood sacrifice as the modus operandi of (vicarious) Atonement. I have more sympathy for this view, since I think the blood is an important symbol, but as so much else, is over-literalized. I mean, c'mon, Christ Himself preached against blood sacrifice at every opportunity, and decried this terrible, unclean practice of his ancestors. Yet theology paints the picture of the same man invalidating every word he said ... if we are then asked to hitch our entire spiritual destiny, inner joy and well-being to Jesus' own blood sacrifice!

Alas, the theology is riddled with inconsistencies, terrible contradictions and logical absurdities ... yet Christ is not to blame for this confusion. Sadly, even his own generation, and closest of followers, did not see to the true heart of the message. But 2,000 years later we are expected to somehow believe that just magically, everything is perfect - and Divine Revelation and understanding are there and ready for the taking if we but turn to "God's word" and "open ourselves?" Well, I do agree with the sentiment, but I insist on a key for deciphering some of the symbolism and allegory. And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

I am as curious and intrigued as ever, and having been sure that this new revelation (for me) was the answer just a couple months ago, now I'm not so sure! But do you see, it's less important to have "the bottom line" - than to continue to ask, and to know why it might make a difference? A hint at the latter, might be in the idea that Jesus' physical body, his emotional aura, and his mind - literally represented one of (if not the) purest means of expression, or vehicles, for contact between G-d, the Father ... and outer humanity (Apostles included), at the time - and this would be true for 2 more millennia! To be able to preserve this means of contact, would have been of tremendous value to the Christ, since even God Himself observes an "economy of energy." Do we think God is wasteful? Or that God is so arbitrary that He simply waives his magic wand, and ex nihilo, nihil fit? Yes, I know some believe that (even while nodding at the Latin phrase) ... but I don't.

So there's my 2 cents on it, which might be more helpful to you than a bunch of petty squabbling over who can say what where, and representing whom!

cheerio,

taijasi

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

taijasi,

...

You just don't go into the specific boards and tear apart the accepted beliefs of that board.

Agreed ... and mea culpa.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Now if you don't mind, I hope that we can drop the matter and get on with the question at hand.

Done!

Namaskar,

taijasi

[Dondi]

Thanks tajasi.

As for the other psychological need ... well, my guess is that it's similar. Just as Jesus is more approachable to some as an ordinary guy who had learned a few tricks and could "cheat death" - perhaps it's easier to integrate his Ministry into the picture of evolving world religions, with every bit as much respect as all other Saviors, but without such focus on blood sacrifice as the modus operandi of (vicarious) Atonement. I have more sympathy for this view, since I think the blood is an important symbol, but as so much else, is over-literalized. I mean, c'mon, Christ Himself preached against blood sacrifice at every opportunity, and decried this terrible, unclean practice of his ancestors. Yet theology paints the picture of the same man invalidating every word he said ... if we are then asked to hitch our entire spiritual destiny, inner joy and well-being to Jesus' own blood sacrifice!

Alas, the theology is riddled with inconsistencies, terrible contradictions and logical absurdities ... yet Christ is not to blame for this confusion. Sadly, even his own generation, and closest of followers, did not see to the true heart of the message. But 2,000 years later we are expected to somehow believe that just magically, everything is perfect - and Divine Revelation and understanding are there and ready for the taking if we but turn to "God's word" and "open ourselves?" Well, I do agree with the sentiment, but I insist on a key for deciphering some of the symbolism and allegory. And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

The Blood of Christ is a sticking point for a lot of folks. I quite frankly do not understand the "mechanics" of how the blood is supposed to cleanse our sins.

But I've come to find in recent years to discover that salvation through the vicarious Atonement of Christ is almost secondary to what God really wants, that is to love Him and love others. Salvation is almost an afterthought. Salvation is not the end but the means toward an end.

I'm convinced that the whole purpose of salvation is not just to avoid hell and gain heaven, but to live a life worth living under the instruction of the Divine. Heaven is really when we all get to that state where we no longer are at each other's throat and can live peacably with one another (a difficult task even in this board). That should be our goal. The sacrifice that Christ made on the Cross is simply one of repair and maintenance. Through Christ and His teachings are we able to incorporate the will of the Father into our lives and become children of God.

On the issue of whether Jesus really died? Certainly He did, whether on the cross or in India or somewhere else, He certainly did die. Maybe the more important question is whether He rose again and is alive forevermore. To answer that question is key to the whole thing for if Christ did rise from the dead, then there is that hope.

[Dor]

Jesus died on that cross...to say otherwise is hogwash.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Dor

Jesus died on that cross...to say otherwise is hogwash.

Dor, a very definitive statement. Just out of curiousity, could you please explain why you think that to say otherwise is hogwash?

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Dor, a very definitive statement. Just out of curiousity, could you please explain why you think that to say otherwise is hogwash?

Apparently not.

I've read through this thread for the first time. I skipped some parts but read most of it. Very educational. The argument as to which forum was the appropriate one on which to post this thread was confusing until I got the idea that possibly it got moved.

It appears like most of the problems got solved along the way. It also looks like perhaps I need not have posted my thread on the liberal Christianity board about Jesus and Liberal Christianity. Some of my questions are answered here. On the other hand, if questions about Jesus' death can evoke such an educational discussion (and I understand there would have been many other paths it could have taken) then perhaps my questions will bring many interesting ideas to the fore, too. I hope so.

BJ

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

Apparently not.

I've read through this thread for the first time. I skipped some parts but read most of it. Very educational. The argument as to which forum was the appropriate one on which to post this thread was confusing until I got the idea that possibly it got moved.

It appears like most of the problems got solved along the way. It also looks like perhaps I need not have posted my thread on the liberal Christianity board about Jesus and Liberal Christianity. Some of my questions are answered here. On the other hand, if questions about Jesus' death can evoke such an educational discussion (and I understand there would have been many other paths it could have taken) then perhaps my questions will bring many interesting ideas to the fore, too. I hope so.

BJ

Thanks for the update/bump, BJ. I must have ignored the earlier post ... but probably because the thread was on another forum, under conventional Christianity ... and I'm glad it's here.

The only thing that's hogwash, I must say, is the insistence that some people will make - that we not look at alternatives, when it comes to things like Christ's death and Resurrection. Or at least explore the possibiltiies. For me, the jury is out. I'm swayed more these days toward the notion that Jesus of Nazareth died. Period. End of story.

Oh, except for the "Resurrection" bit, which proceeded no differently than was the case with hundreds of Initiates prior, and also a handful since. But the Presence of the Christ - definitely makes the events of 2100 years ago exceptional. And quite relevant today, as we experience the same sort of transition: this time, from Pisces into Aquarius, vs. Aries into Pisces beforehand. (Thank goodness we will not need to witness the Crucifixion again this time ... at least not as such.)

To understand what occurred with Jesus of Nazareth, we should explore what's going on now, and this has everything to do with the work of H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Lucille Cedercrans (as well as other Messengers, or `Prophets,' as Christians term them). These are, today, what the various pre-Christian Forerunners were, who announced Christ's Coming and prepared the Way, 2100 years ago and more.

But in the last analysis, esotericism regards the death of Jesus of Nazareth as a necessary tragedy. This was less for political reasons, than for the maintaining of the status quo, specifically of the Sanhedrin and religious authorities of the day. We see the same death grip being attempted today, as the church wrangles and wrestles to hold onto the one and only truth ... regarding x, y or z.

Owing to superstition, and the tragic distortion of Christ's Message by various ecclesiastic "authorities" ... death has come to matter more than life, and frankly, I'm convinced that a LIVING Christ poses the GREATEST THREAT of all - to a great number of people. Why?

Because He would, and He will - indeed He IS - set(ting) the record straight, about these, and other issues.

Truth shall prevail ... SOL INVICTUS (sic),

taijasi

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Penguin,
What I love about CR is that we can just say, What do you think, and we know that de facto, anything said is opinion, and no one here speaks as "an official,"
taijasi

That quote is wonderful. I appreciate it very much.
Thanks

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by inhumility

That quote is wonderful. I appreciate it very much.
Thanks

Yes, every now and then I forget, and stand up. But the Zen Master, he seems to carry a big stick ... and he's quick with it, too - ouch!

Namaste ... and Salam!

andrew

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by taijasi

and if the Reappearance ( of Christ Jesus Christ ) is a growing reality now, as I believe it is, then this is where we should really be putting our focus.
......
......
And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

This is important and valid from another point of view also. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been sent by God as Jesus/Messiah in Reappearance and God has told him that Jesus was though put on Cross, yet he did not die on Cross, he survived and later died in Sirinagar, Kashmir in India and he was informed of arguments inherent from New Testament for Christians and from Quran for understanding of the Muslims, without putting any new verse in these scriptures but by bringing into light irrefutable interpretation from these books. If one does not have a blind-faith, one has belief in rationality, then one can find this truth easily, it is convincingly correct. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also informed that historical evidences would also usher in from independent sources. For this reason the significance of Jesus survival from Cross and dying a natural death later in India, increases for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Solving of this ,hitherto, mystery can unite the Abrahamic and other Revealed Religions.
Thanks

[taijasi]

Inhumility,

I am familiar, somewhat, with the account you've shared. I've come across websites that detail the possibilities of Jesus surviving the crucifixion, and I also have scans of a book called `Adept of Galilee' that I'm reading ... which may address this point.

There is a very good essay by Swami Abhedenanda, a Hindu, entitled `Was Christ a Yogi,' which is reprinted in the 1920s book `Adept of Galilee.' The essay is online, here, and is I recommend taking a look.


Also, Swami Abhedenanda wrote an essay entitled, `Jesus versus Churchianity,' and I am very much in sympathy with the points he makes, overall ... as highlighted in his opening paragraph:

A Hindu distinguishes the religion of the churches from the religion of Jesus Christ. Speaking from the Hindu standpoint, the religion that the churches uphold and preach today, that has been built around the personality of Jesus the Christ, and which is popularly known as Christianity, should be called ‘Churchianity’, in contradistinction to that pure religion of the heart that was taught by Jesus the Christ and practised by his disciples. The religion of Christ or true Christianity had no dogma, no creed, no system, and no theology. It was a religion of the heart, a religion without any ceremonial, without ritual, without priest-craft. It was not based upon any book, but upon the feelings of the heart, upon direct communion of the individual soul with the heavenly Father. On the contrary, the religion of the church is based upon a book, believes in dogmas, professes a creed, has an organized system for preaching it, is backed up by theologies, performs rituals, practises ceremonials, and obeys the commands of a host of priests.

Another excellent point, which is one of my own chief objections to the exclusivity we often see occuring in churchianity, is stated later in the essay:

Although many of the Hindus believe in the doctrine of the incarnation of God in a human form, still they strongly object to the dogmatic method by which the churches preach it among the heathens. Their first objection is that if God could incarnate in one place for a certain purpose, why should He not incarnate whenever and wherever such an incarnation was needed? The church dogmas make the love of God for humanity limited by time, place and nationality. The love of God for humanity must be unlimited by such narrow considerations. God loves all humanity; His love shines equally upon all living creatures like the light of the sun. The Hindu conception of the incarnation of God is beautifully expressed in the Bhagavad Gita. In that Lord Krishna says: "Wherever irreligion prevails and true religion declines, I manifest Myself in a human form to establish righteousness and to destroy evil"

But worst of all, it is this notion of tying one man's death to a supposed vicarious atonement and trouble-free, effortless salvation for the masses ... which makes of personal responsibility a mockery ... that stains the entire Teaching, Purpose and Mission of Christ Jesus with falsity and superstition. It carries us backward, rather than moves us forward - let alone opening a door to the future.

Indeed, if God has killed his only son, so that we might be spiritually redeemed, then how is THIS any different than the blood sacrifice of ANIMALS that so tainted the earlier religions, which Christ Himself most certainly came to REFORM?

All manner of objection will be raised, and all sorts of efforts made to distort or reinterpret this very basic - and obvious - problem. Yet so long as there is clinging to vicarious atonement, no real answer will be forthcoming. And it is an offense, not only to good common sense and our human reason, but also to the Spirit and the innate Dignity of all people to insist that this susperstitious nonsense be regarded somehow "sacred."

Shall we, like some, cross ourselves immediatley upon swearing? Or perhaps if we kill a small rodent, it will be propitiation enough? A fatted cow? A passover lamb?

No, I think the symbolism of the "Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World" is already lost. So long as Christ Jesus remains - in the eyes of churchianity - God's Sacrifice ... we can expect little from the churches, certainly by way of further penetration into the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but probably also in terms of comparative religion.

It remains for the individual Members, of Christ's Church (both esoteric and exoteric), to break away from the pack, and - like the Goat of Capricorn (the symbol of the Initiate, now thoroughly confused, in most Christians' eyes, with PAN, or "the devil") - assert their Divine Individuality. This must ever precede the coming together in a conscious, Spiritual Group, which is the opposite, even the antithesis, of the animal, herd instinct.

The contemplation of the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, imho, will yield us more spiritual profit - in understanding the meaning, necessity and purpose for the death of Christ Jesus - than a whole book of Sundays, spent in the pews, nodding and poking each other to keep from falling asleep. It's that last line, especially, where I think St. Francis really reminds us - who it is (and what it is), that must die.

As St. Paul said, "I die daily." And yes, this man was a High Initiate. He now serves the Christ with Master Jesus, side by side, and has His own Ashram, as Master H. (Ray 5, Science).

Namaskar,

taijasa

[arthra]

My view is that the knowledge and wisdom of Jesus was innate and not acquired from anyone else... just as the Buddha didn't acquire His knowledge from anyone else nor did He go to an esoteric school to become enlightened.

The Baha'i view is that the body of Jesus was crucified and that He died... His Cause however was resurrected... that is those who followed Him took heart and realized that His teachings and Spirit continued to influence the souls of men in a spiritual sense.

The stories about Kashmir I think are legends just as the ones about Glaustonbury.

- Art

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by arthra

My view is that the knowledge and wisdom of Jesus was innate and not acquired from anyone else... just as the Buddha didn't acquire His knowledge from anyone else nor did He go to an esoteric school to become enlightened.

The Baha'i view is that the body of Jesus was crucified and that He died... His Cause however was resurrected... that is those who followed Him took heart and realized that His teachings and Spirit continued to influence the souls of men in a spiritual sense.

The stories about Kashmir I think are legends just as the ones about Glaustonbury.

- Art

Art,

I think this is something worth contemplating. I agree - the knowledge and Wisdom of Christed Jesus were not something that was simply imparted ... by a school, by a sect, or even by some other enlightened Teacher.

This is what esotericism is all about. Not the notion that a "secret body of teachings" exists apart from Humanity, or somehow preserved somewhere, which we simply access - either through a Brotherhood, or by performing some kind of special ceremony.

Rather, the Wisdom, the knowledge, and the Truth - including the potential for all Love, and for perfect Compassion - is something that dwells within us. This is the exact teaching of esoteric Buddhism (or Vajrayana). Ours is the calling, and the responsiblity, as well as the destiny, to awaken to this innate potential .... and to perfect the "God within."

I find that New Age Teachings attempt to simplify this idea, but it is very difficult for many people who have become accustomed to the prevalent, exoteric teachings of modern times ... to grasp this notion of the "God within." The very concept that `G-d' could have somehow "fallen asleep," even rendered in poetic or allegorical terms, is strange to them. And yet, this is exactly what esoteric ideas communicate.

Not God Transcendent, the Absolute, or Godhead, but rather - a fragment of the totality of God (which, nonetheless, reproduces the whole - much as a hologram) ... has descended into incarnation, into generation. And it is this fragment to which we are awakening, a fragment relative to the totality of Godhead, yet a vast and complete Whole, unto itself, when considered relative to our limited, mortal existence.

Christ, the Buddha, and others, have demonstrated what it means to be AWAKE to this greater reality, or to be ANNOINTED with the Living, Fire of Life Itself. At best, we can glimpse their completion in poetic terms, or through some sort of allegory. We are like preschool children, reaching to comprehend the mysteries of geometry. Our knowledge may not allow us to draw and measure the various angles with precision, but we can and do appreciate the beauty of the geometrical forms we are shown ... and we can at least discern that it is truly a sacred science.

An Esoteric School, such as the ones Jesus of Nazareth visited, and which are in the process of forming on the planet today, is not something which exists, or begins primarily on the physical plane and taps into a hidden, esoteric or deeper Wisdom. It is precisely the opposite.

The true Esoteric School is the Ashram of the Master, existing as a magnetic envelope, or sphere of influence, but with a very definite reality ... in the inner worlds. It is objective, yet it does not originate in the world of the sense, or emotions, or even of lower mind. This is one of the many aspects of Godhead, and it is just one of the many ways in which we come to understand the Mysteries of God, of ourselves, and of the Universe. Above all, an esoteric school is about SERVICE. The entire Purpose for its existence (on ANY plane), is to train disciples, and to awaken the Spirit within, so that we return to our Source, our Home, the Father's House ... and to do so IN COMPANY, not alone.

Any true esoteric school that is encountered on the physical plane, today just as 2100, or even 21000 years ago, is simply the outward reflection, or projection into time and space, of a timeless truth ... or of this Inward, Sacred Center ... where as you say, the wisdom and knowledge of God (or of Heaven), is known and kept.

So the idea that Jesus traveled to several such schools, and took Initiations in the various Sacred Temples of his day, is not to suggest that these schools imparted something to him anew ... or that this is how they operate. Rather, they would have assisted him in the remembering (literally), or the reawakening, of what he had already learned in previous lives.

Still, the point you make is a vital one. Esoteric Schools do not hold, or guard the Wisdom and knowledge of God as some kind of objectified, or tangible manifestation. Not even the holiest book on Earth, could EVER begin to capture the Truth that is, and is within, the human Heart. Nor can the Prophet speak this Truth, as it CANNOT be imparted, from one person to another. At best, techniques, and outward teachings, may be shared. The awakening to the inner reality is a personal, individual process ... and that Reality itself, cannot be communicated.

The Tao that can be named ... is not the Eternal Tao.

Namaskar,

taijasa

[arthra]

Hummm Interesting post Taijasa... there is somthing called the "school" referred to by Abdul-Baha that also might relate to what you expressed and goes something like this:

In one of His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains that some were misled by this statement and thought that the school referred to was a physical school for the training of unlettered children, whereas it referred to a spiritual school sanctified from the limits of the contingent world. Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas also refers to this Epistle of the Báb in the following words:
O Thou Supreme Pen! Move over the Tablet by the leave of Thy Lord, the Creator of the heavens. Call Thou then to mind the day when the Fountainhead of divine unity sought to attend the school which is sanctified of all save God, that perchance the righteous might become acquainted, to the extent of a needle’s eye, with that which is concealed behind the veil of the inner mysteries of Thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Say, We, in truth, entered the school of inner meaning and exposition at a time when the minds of all that dwell on earth were wrapt in heedlessness. We beheld what the Merciful Lord had revealed, accepted the gift He [the Báb] had offered Me of the verses of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, and hearkened to that to which He had attested in the Tablet. We, verily, are the Witness. We responded to His call at Our Own behest, and We are, in truth, the Ordainer.

O people of the Bayán! We entered the School of God when ye were slumbering on your couches, and perused the Tablet when ye were fast asleep. By the righteousness of God, the True One, We had read it before it was revealed, and ye were utterly unaware. Indeed Our knowledge had encompassed the Book when ye were yet unborn.

These utterances are revealed according to your measure, not to God’s, and unto this beareth witness that which is enshrined in the knowledge of God, did ye but know. Unto this testifieth He Who is the Mouthpiece of God, could ye but understand. By the righteousness of God! Were We to lift the veil ye would swoon away. Take heed lest ye dispute with Him and His Cause. He hath indeed appeared in such wise as to encompass all things, whether of the past or of the future. Were We to speak forth at this time in the language of the dwellers of the Kingdom, We would say that God raised up this School ere the earth and the heavens were brought into being, and We entered it before the letters ‘B’ and ‘E’ were joined and knit together.

Source:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/tb/S...=highlight#fn1

- Art