Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Tomb of Jesus Theory + Ajani Theory (Highly Controversial!)
ajani_mgo
Veteran
Hmm, tell me why am I always going against the flow by introducing and thinking up alternative theories...
WARNING: The below content may affect your trust in the Church, as well as your experience of Christ.
Anyway a few days ago I stumbled across this website while looking for evidence of the Buddha's teachings influencing dear Jesus's teachings.
http://www.tombofjesus.com
Uncovered evidence suggests that Jesus never really died on the cross accroding to modern medical standards - just the primitive medical standards of the past. Then for some reason he survived and somehow disappeared and walked to India and died there, calling himself Isa, that will remind some of us of the name of the Prophet in Islam.
Seems a little interesting to me, now I'm trying to come up with a collective theory according to the different theories and religions of who this Jesus could really be, (everyone murmurs: a total waste of time :doh: ) And well, unless the evidence on the website are all total forgeries, I believe that an ounce of truth remains in the theory. Truly, I had believed that perhaps the teachings of Jesus was misunderstood by the Church from the start. Jesus himself could very well have believed himself dead too, then revived, just as moderns who experienced NDE (Near-Death Experience) believe themselves dead, then alive.
Also, the Son of God could very well be interpreted non-literally as one Created by God himself. Jesus said that through him could one reach the Father. That could be that by following his behaviour could one be loved and accepted by God. The visions of angels who came down to announce the birth of Christ could be very much be the birth of a new Prophet - like the coming of a new Matreiya. Many more examples could be re-interpreted to give someone new understanding of the teachings. Pardon me for my poor understanding of the Gospel, as well as my controversial take on it.
WARNING: The below content may affect your trust in the Church, as well as your experience of Christ.
Anyway a few days ago I stumbled across this website while looking for evidence of the Buddha's teachings influencing dear Jesus's teachings.
http://www.tombofjesus.com
Uncovered evidence suggests that Jesus never really died on the cross accroding to modern medical standards - just the primitive medical standards of the past. Then for some reason he survived and somehow disappeared and walked to India and died there, calling himself Isa, that will remind some of us of the name of the Prophet in Islam.
Seems a little interesting to me, now I'm trying to come up with a collective theory according to the different theories and religions of who this Jesus could really be, (everyone murmurs: a total waste of time :doh: ) And well, unless the evidence on the website are all total forgeries, I believe that an ounce of truth remains in the theory. Truly, I had believed that perhaps the teachings of Jesus was misunderstood by the Church from the start. Jesus himself could very well have believed himself dead too, then revived, just as moderns who experienced NDE (Near-Death Experience) believe themselves dead, then alive.
Also, the Son of God could very well be interpreted non-literally as one Created by God himself. Jesus said that through him could one reach the Father. That could be that by following his behaviour could one be loved and accepted by God. The visions of angels who came down to announce the birth of Christ could be very much be the birth of a new Prophet - like the coming of a new Matreiya. Many more examples could be re-interpreted to give someone new understanding of the teachings. Pardon me for my poor understanding of the Gospel, as well as my controversial take on it.
0
Comments
Truth often resembles itself!
How profound, I'll have to remember that one !
I don't know. I may be very wrong. All points of research into theology and philosophy from me always starts from the assumption that this stuff is all true - then I work down and then take a critics' viewpoint. I believe that unlike the Muslims, who from the start read the Qu'Ran non-literally, the Christians took everything literally and thus you could see the foolishness in it (sorry for "foolishness" - but no better word for use).
Don't worry. I am always lurking in the shadows.
Foolishness is a very good, scriptural word, Ajani. Paul speaks about the "folly of the Cross". It is the hierophants and priests and hierarchies who have tried to pretend it's sane and sensible.