by anglise 14 Replies latest jw friends
Having by chance watched this prog on BBC4 I have been doing some research into this story.
It is fascinating. It presents information proving that Jesus survived the crucifixion and then travelled to Kashmir where he lived and preached to the lost tribes of Israel.
I have never read any of this in the WT or any other church publications its all new to me.
Has anyone else on the board done any research on this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml
Anglise
Thank you for the link, I am sure going to check that out !
Sounds like it was written by a Muslim, who teach that 'an image of Christ' appeared on the stake, in other words Jesus was never executed. This may be interesting....
Hi Hamas
The BBCi site also contains an interview with the director of the programme.
it seems the account goes way back even to some of the books left out of the accepted bible canon such as Thomas.
http://www.hknet.org.nz/JesusLivedInIndia.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mark_mason/ch4ex2.htm
The second century Church Father Irenaeus wrote a celebrated book called Against Heresies, which was crucial in establishing church orthodoxy. In this book he claimed Jesus lived to be an old man, and remained in "Asia" with his disciple John, and others, up to the times of the Emperor Trajan, before finally dying. Trajan's reign began in 98 A.D., at which time Jesus would have been just over one hundred years old.[22] This is support, from a most unexpected quarter, for Kirsten's theory.
Anglise
I watched this program last night. Actually the part that stands out the most from this program was footage of some crackpots in the Philipines who take part in a ceremony every year where they have to carry a cross through the crowds, are then nailed to it and left crucified for an hour. When it showed the nails being hammered into their hands I nearly choked on my glass of Chardonnay!!
The program said it took many days for people to die of crucifiction and that death was due to suffocation. The legs could be broken to help speed up death. Many also survived the process.
They brought out many so-called experts who talked about the inconsistencies of the gospels and one compared this to an event being covered by four different reporters, each of whom would concentrate on different aspects of the same event.
The most interesting comment was one guy who questioned why the resurrected Christ didn't appear to more people. He said one of the gospels originally had no information about him appearing to anyone and this information was added later. Wish I could remember which gospel. Maybe someone else can help?
Hi Cityfan
was it the part where they spoke of the ascension only being dependably recorded in 1 gospel account and very briefly at that, the others being accepted as spurious and later additions?
I wish I had recorded it but I didnt know it was going to be so interesting.
Anglise
PS Chardonnay!! good thing it wasnt a rich red merlot lol
Anglize,
Chapter and verse of the Irenaus deal please.
Hi Anglise
Yes - that was the point made. I'm going to search the internet tomorrow and try and find some further info on later additions to the gospels.
Anglise,
The article you linked, and you yourself said,
After an extensive word search on several sites that have Ireanus "Against Heresies" on line I find NOTHING suggesting Irenaus beleived Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived to be an old man in Asia. Book, Chapter, and Paragraph showing otherwise please.The second century Church Father Irenaeus wrote a celebrated book called Against Heresies, which was crucial in establishing church orthodoxy. In this book he claimed Jesus lived to be an old man, and remained in "Asia" with his disciple John, and others, up to the times of the Emperor Trajan, before finally dying. Trajan's reign began in 98 A.D., at which time Jesus would have been just over one hundred years old.[22] This is support, from a most unexpected quarter, for Kirsten's theory.
Hi Yerusalyim
This I think would be the point to which the quote is referring
T HE G NOSTIC S OCIETY L IBRARY
Irenaeus: Against Heresies
BOOK II5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"(4) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His
real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their AEons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:-- Oi de qeoi par Zhni kaqhmenoi hgorownto Xrusew en dapedw:(7)
which we may thus render into English:(8)--
"The gods sat round, while Jove presided o'er, And converse held upon the golden floor."
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anglise
Anglise,
I can see where you made a mistake on this, the archaic English structure is difficult.
those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.
The "He" in this text refers to John, and John remaining amongst those in Asia until the time of the Emperor Trajan.
are you seeing it now?
