<!--QuoteBegin-Solomon+May 29 2006, 11:19 AM-->QUOTE(Solomon @ May 29 2006, 11:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I feel an Analysis of Jesus of History, based on Canonical Gospels and where Fraud quotes of OT as Prophecies have been given need to be Analysed. Kindly advise Suitable Thread and place please.
[right][snapback]51798[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solomon,
Please continue your analysis on this thread. I am sure moderators can move it to another thread if needed.
Elst says the Resurrection was nothing more than a practical joke of the roman centurions:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Crucified convicts were tied (not nailed) to a cross, and their death was brought about by torture and by breaking their bones. Interestingly, the Roman soldiers refrained from breaking Jesusâ bones, no doubt because they had orders to do so. Having heard of the prediction that Jesus would rise on the third day, Pilate must have thought it quite an interesting practical joke to arrange for the effective re-appearance of this weird godman. So, he ordered a servant to look after Jesus after he had been taken down from the cross, and to get him back on his feet by the third day...
...The belief that he had come back was crucial to the Christiansâ faith, and only a few years after the fact, Saint Paul declared that without the âresurrectionâ, the Christian faith would make no sense.  http://www.bharatvani.org/books/pp/ch3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still, I find it a more satisfying explanation that the story of the resurrected mithras was incorporated into the bible narrative at a later date. Still, we have to ask ourselves, why do the christians have this absurd need to prove that, without christ's resurrection, his 'sacrifice' on the cross has no meaning. also the idea of one man compensating for the sins of entire mankind is completely nonsensical from the karma standpoint in which one action begets another action..
It should not be too hard to get the image implanted into Hindu brains that christ was nothing more than a sadomasochist who enjoyed being paraded naked on a donkey and mocked at, who had purposefully enacted his macabre death wish in order to die vaingloriously as the messiah... just another besharmi like nutwar singh intent on lingering in people's memory well past his catastrophic failure..
at long last, we are at a juncture where the Christians are being forced to abandon the trope of christ as the innocent victim of bloodthirsty and hardheaded jews... and they are desperately trying to redefine him as a philosopher (eg da vinci), a revolutionist, etc.
[right][snapback]51798[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solomon,
Please continue your analysis on this thread. I am sure moderators can move it to another thread if needed.
Elst says the Resurrection was nothing more than a practical joke of the roman centurions:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Crucified convicts were tied (not nailed) to a cross, and their death was brought about by torture and by breaking their bones. Interestingly, the Roman soldiers refrained from breaking Jesusâ bones, no doubt because they had orders to do so. Having heard of the prediction that Jesus would rise on the third day, Pilate must have thought it quite an interesting practical joke to arrange for the effective re-appearance of this weird godman. So, he ordered a servant to look after Jesus after he had been taken down from the cross, and to get him back on his feet by the third day...
...The belief that he had come back was crucial to the Christiansâ faith, and only a few years after the fact, Saint Paul declared that without the âresurrectionâ, the Christian faith would make no sense.  http://www.bharatvani.org/books/pp/ch3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still, I find it a more satisfying explanation that the story of the resurrected mithras was incorporated into the bible narrative at a later date. Still, we have to ask ourselves, why do the christians have this absurd need to prove that, without christ's resurrection, his 'sacrifice' on the cross has no meaning. also the idea of one man compensating for the sins of entire mankind is completely nonsensical from the karma standpoint in which one action begets another action..
It should not be too hard to get the image implanted into Hindu brains that christ was nothing more than a sadomasochist who enjoyed being paraded naked on a donkey and mocked at, who had purposefully enacted his macabre death wish in order to die vaingloriously as the messiah... just another besharmi like nutwar singh intent on lingering in people's memory well past his catastrophic failure..
at long last, we are at a juncture where the Christians are being forced to abandon the trope of christ as the innocent victim of bloodthirsty and hardheaded jews... and they are desperately trying to redefine him as a philosopher (eg da vinci), a revolutionist, etc.