The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 65)

Zanjan: " It's possible he crossed at the shallow end."

Makes sense. Since Eilat is in Israel, there's only one other shallow end. Undoubtedly, like Jesus, Moses could walk on water but the people and stuff He had with Him couldn't.

The choke point of the Bab-el-Mandeb strait (Yemen) has several large coral reefs. One can't walk over coral so it must have been exposed land at the time. Seawater levels would have been lower than now.

Today, a jog from shore to shore (26 klms) without stopping would take around 5 hours, if not dragging along anything. The Bible says they left at midnight and by morning's light (about 6 hours), they saw the waters had closed in and drowned the Army. That's about right.

The argument is based on text, naming the location as the Reed Sea so that would have been a shallow, marshy area that's frequently inundated with floods and tides. However, if they had to navigate through a mess of reeds, that's tough sledding.

Zanjan: The Ethiopians have some books nobody else has; nobody knows who wrote them and they can't be authenticated. Seems to me, the ancient Christians would have known about that before rejecting them from cannon.

ghostgeek: The Gulf of Aqaba, otherwise known as the Gulf of Eilat, seems a good place to have Moses do his paddling. Turn right and he'd be in Midian. Of course, trying to get a few million people across in a morning seems a bit of a stretch, but a hundred or so should have had no problems.

ghostgeek: I believe they nearly turfed the Gospel according to John out.

Zanjan: Well, if the message didn't change, it's no biggie. Not like that was the only version.

ghostgeek: Revelation also nearly didn't make it. I wonder why they decided to let it in?

Zanjan: My question is why did they re-name it, then re-name it erroneously? They're not Revelations, they're prophecies.

Originally, it was titled the "Apocalypse of John". I figure that scared a few people. Firstly, the title was bad because it's not John's Apocalypse - he didn't invent it, it didn't happen to him, not everything in it was bad and disturbing, and he didn't teach it - that is, it wasn't a testimony or an epistle.

The title "Revelations" is wrong because John wasn't a Revelator; he was a follower. A Revelation discloses a package of knowledge, most of which was previously unknown; the new knowledge has laws, commands, instructions and a dispensation for mankind; it's the Word of God, spoken by God's appointed Revelator on earth - in this case, Christ.

So, this title was slapped on purely out of ignorance of spiritual realities and of John's rank and station. He foresaw the future of religion in a series of visions; the series has three time slots, easily discernable (if you know anything about history). People think it's all about the world but it's not - it refers to the religious story, a large portion involving the Holy Land, itself.

Why not just name it "John's Prophecies"?

All genuine visions are conveyed to the individual by God; when it's specifically about religion, those visions are facilitated by the Revelators. So, that lends itself to the divine (flawless), as opposed to predictions by a really good psychic.

John can be likened to one of the lesser prophets of the House of Israel - that means, he'd have to prove he had integrity of character and his visions were accurate before anyone would accept them. That requires documentation.

Unlike a Revelation, prophecy isn't intended to be understood until the event occurs. For John to prove the validity of these visions, he'd have to include some short-range prophecies (first series). Christians saw those fulfilled during the formative period of Christianity so, I gather that's why they included all of them in the Bible. They trusted they'd all be proven in kind.

ghostgeek: I guess it's because it's supposed to be revealing what's to come. Ask Blackshoes and I'm sure he'd tell you that it's an eyewitness report from the future.

Zanjan: Hahahah.

Spoiler alert - the apocalypse is actually a dynamic. John was aware of that from the get go....since Abraham. The visons gave him a few specific details. Obviously, he saw some things there were no words for in his language but did his best comparing to what was familiar in his world.

Yep, an apoclypse happens at the end of every dispensation. Jews and Christians had theirs already.....now they're just so mellow they're sleepy, kinda like when one has smoked weed. That makes them generous and affable, not a threat. Like an old man, both occasionally need propping up.

Islam's apocalypse is still in progress but close to its end, just winding down, not quite finished. It has a bit of energy left....more like drawing on a final calorie burn from the horse's back for that Parthian shot. They have very good aim because they're well-disciplined, alert people.

Zanjan: Don't get me wrong - I'm not judging them. How would that be possible when one specimen is rural and the other is urban, one is tribal while the other has no family, one is from the east, the other from the west?

I'm stripping away the history; and, as they stand in the same room with me today, I'm looking at the traits they share in common. It's a first and indelible impression - neither good or bad, just dominant.

Among all of them, those of true faith standout with no words, names, occupations, specific clothing or demeanor. Their religion is written all over their face. What character traits might those be?

It's gentle kindness with bright eyes. The sign of courage amidst suffering.

chronology: I say zan. Do you think this religious experience is something like The Tommyknockers. People who find an ancient thing and become super advanced over everyone else?

Are you zan, a Tommyknocker?

ghostgeek: Happy are those who believe, even if it is in the spirits of deceased miners.

Zanjan: Chron, I've never heard of tommyknockers so I looked it up. I can understand how such superstitions emerge - noticing something out of the ordinary but inexplicable.

You've reminded me of a tragedy that occurred not far from where I live. There's a mountain in the pass our First Nations people named Turtle Mountain because it would move. They had grave misgivings about it, saying it had an angry spirit so they steered as far away from it as possible as they traveled through the valley.

Near the turn of the century, somebody discovered coal deposits there and built a mining town against the advice of Natives. The dollar signs had a louder voice. Workers came from afar, the town grew quickly and its bank was full of money.

One night in 1903, when everyone in town was sleeping, the side of the mountain noisily slid away and rolled over the valley, deeply burying the whole town and railway tracks in just a few minutes. There was only one survivor - a baby who was tossed out of her crib.

Hard to say if that was a natural or man-made disaster - the miners had made so many tunnels through the mountain to bring out the coal. Afterward, numerous treasure hunters tried to dig down through the boulders to get to the town's bank - every one of them was killed trying. Now it's forbidden. The place is called Frank Slide.

There's an interpretive center on the opposite mountain, above the valley - I've been there a few times; looking out over the mess, one can't help but get dreadful visions of the time and feel a chill up the spine. See, it looks like the mountain deliberately aimed at the town.

If only they'd listened to the Natives. Alas, they didn't believe in spirits.

chronology: Intetesting zan, must have been very sad for the people there. First Nation Elders have many stories handed down from the past. Years ago people used to see First Nation folks as deeply spiritual people.
North America before the Great Flood was said to have had a extensive civilisation. With networks of roads and canals criss crossing the continent. Some say America was Atlantis. But the only memory of this now is with the Elders of First Nation people. U.S. Academics refuse to even admit there were even people there before the Flood.
Very sad story about the town zan.

The13th: any.of.you.guys watch.crazy hlstory of.the world.lately. i like the part mel brooke cursed "Jessssussss Chrrrrristttt"" and Jesus said WHAT? Then Mel said WHAT WHAT? Hilirious.

ghostgeek: Can't say I have.

The13th: it goes like this: JESUS. YES. WHAT. WHAT. WHATTTT. YES.
JESUS. WHAT YES. WHAT. YOU SAID.WHAT.WHAT. NOTHING.

MJ59: Being like Paul


When we look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, there is a question that comes to mind -- why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today?

It really is odd. Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions.

So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul? There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you. And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you?

It is an important question for the following reasons:

We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.

We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people -- it does not take away their free will, for example -- because it was OK for Jesus to appear to hundreds of other people.

We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless.

We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?

Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.

In other words, there is nothing stopping Jesus from appearing to you, and several good reasons for him to appear.

In addition, Jesus promises that he will appear to you. All that we have to do is pray to Jesus like this: "Dear Jesus, please appear to us, as you did to Paul and the 500 brethren, so that we can see the evidence of your resurrection. In your name we pray, amen." Here is what Jesus has promised us in the Bible:

Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

In John chapter 14:14:

Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

In Matthew 18:19:

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jesus is actually in our midst. So he is right here already, supposedly. Yet when we pray to him to physically materialize, as he did to hundreds of others, nothing happens.

Isn't it odd that Nothing happens, given the fact that Jesus promises us that something will happen? Isn't it odd that Nothing happens when, supposedly, Jesus is right here with us already, and materialization would be trivial for him? Isn't it odd that Nothing happens when, supposedly, Jesus was happy to appear to hundreds of others?

What you will find, if you think about it, is that the situation we see here is the kind of unambiguous situation described Proof #9. We have created a situation where coincidence cannot "answer" the prayer. The only way for this prayer to be answered is for Jesus to actually, unambiguously, materialize. In this situation, we also know that:

It is trivial for Jesus to materialize
There would be many benefits if Jesus did materialize
Jesus has supposedly materialized to other human beings
Jesus has promised to answer our prayer that he materialize

How do we explain the fact that this prayer goes unanswered, no matter who prays, despite Jesus' promise that he will answer our prayers?

As you think about this, you will realize that Paul's story in the Bible is false. Simply look at Paul's story like any judge in a courtroom would. What Paul's story in 1 Cor 15 is suggesting is entirely unprecedented - a man dead three days with mortal wounds came back to life. Yet there is no evidence that it is true, and there are many alternative explanations for what Paul is saying. Paul could be fabricating the story, Paul could have hallucinated or dreamed the meeting, Paul could have seen an imposter, etc. In addition, no one is seeing Jesus today, even though it would be trivial and obvious for Jesus to appear to people today just like he did with Paul, and Jesus promises in the Bible that he will answer our prayers.

What about Jesus' famous statement in the Bible, "Happy are those who have not seen yet still believe"? What you realize is that this statement creates the perfect cover for a scam. Let's say you are Jesus, you are a normal human being, you realize that you are going to die (everybody does) and you want to cover for this fact. Here is what you would say: "Happy are those who have not seen yet still believe." What you are saying is, "the way I am going to show you that I exist is by not showing that I exist." For every other object in the universe, the way that we know it exists is because the object provides evidence of its existence. If there is no evidence for an object's existence, we call it imaginary (e.g. Leprechauns). But with Jesus, the lack of evidence is turned into evidence. Quite clever, but obviously a scam.

If the resurrection were true, then Jesus would be answering prayers as he promises in the Bible. He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary.

https://godisimaginary.com/excuses.htm <--- excuses used

Zanjan: "Why isn't Jesus appearing today?"

He only appears to a few. I saw Him. I reckon there's a different reason each time He visits someone, just as it was for the early Christians.

"Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected"

His reasons for the visitation aren't to prove anything - they're to help the individual who's struggling with something. You can find proof that life continues to exist after death or simply believe what God says - the hereafter is not what the resurrection was about.

The onus is on you to recognize of your own accord who Christ was. No stunting necessary. It's YOUR test, not His.

"if you ask anything in my name, I will do it. "

By all means, ask - He'll definitely send you the appropriate test. If you fail to pass it, that's on you. There's the unwritten understanding you're not asking for that which is against the Will of God because THAT He won't do.

Some people pray for the Messiah to return; He returns anyway, whether anyone likes it or not. Once He returns, it's up to you to seek Him - not with an offhanded curiosity but with a burning desire and a thirst that won't be quenched until you find Him.

ghostgeek: It's not hard to figure out who the Jesus of the Gospels was. Somebody's imaginary saviour.

Zanjan: Jesus said that even if you didn't see Him, you're blessed if you believe Him. I think the latter is the greater blessing, among millions of different possible blessings. Such people don't need the visuals, they're not in a jam.

edmund_carey: I haven't read this whole thread, but, if no one has mentioned it, the obvious resource for this problem is Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman begins by reporting that 99.99% of scholars in relevant disciplines in the U.S. are convinced that Jesus existed, and then goes on to explain why that is so. He takes you through the unlikelihood of a story like the crucifixion being an invention, and through the fact that St Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus' brother. He explains as a scholar knowledgeable with the languages involved can do that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels can be reasonably dated to the decade he died in.

Ehrman also takes to task the common arguments that Jesus did not exist and shows them all to be wanting in credibility. And he points out (and he is a secular humanist with no religion) that if you want to deconstruct Christianity you don't have to go for untenable positions that convince no real scholar to do it. The actual history, so far as it is known, of how Christianity originated, and the actual facts about what sort of phenomenon Jesus was, will do that just fine.

Ehrman's conclusion: "Jesus existed, whether we like it or not".

ghostgeek: Jesus comes in two varieties. There's the Jesus of the Gospels and then there's the historical Jesus.

xylance: Ghostgeek...Does that mean you have moved on from your OP position? You originally questioned if he ever existed.....now you acknowledge there was an historical Jesus?

ghostgeek: I've arrived at this conclusion. There was a man called Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem and is mentioned by Josephus. This man, according to Paul, was seen after his death by quite a number of people. Josephus also states that Jesus had a brother, James, who ran Jesus' movement after his execution.

This is the extent of our knowledge about the historical Jesus. Everything else we think we know about him, from reading the Gospels and Acts, is fiction.