Is anybody came from heavens to this world in the human history? No

[Aupmanyav]

There are some religious books that say that somebody went to heaven but in human history, nobody came back physically. And nobody saw them.

They did come back according to legends. One was Satyavan whom his wife Savitri brought back by playing a trick. Savitri prayed to Yama, and the Lord of Death appeared and as is usual blessed Savitri to have many sons. But Savitri said 'you have taken away my husband. How will I have many sons." Yama had to return Satyavan to life.

In another case, Sage Vājashravas committed his son to Yama, the Lord of Death ecause of his persistant questioning.
"So Nachiketa went to Yamaraja's home, but Yama was out, and he waited three days without any food or water. When Yama returned, he was sorry to see that a Brahmin guest had been waiting so long without food and water. In Indian culture guests are believed to be equal to god and causing trouble to god is a great sin. To compensate for his mistake, Yama told Nachiketa, "You have waited in my house for three days without hospitality, therefore ask three boons from me". Nachiketa first asked for peace for his father and himself, when he returned to his father. Yama agreed. Next, Nachiketa wished to learn the sacred fire sacrifice, which also Yama elaborated. For his third boon, Nachiketa wanted to learn the mystery of what comes after the death of the body.Yama was reluctant on this question. He said that this had been a mystery even to the gods. He asked Nachiketa to ask for some other boon and offered many material gains.

But Nachiketa replied that material things will last only ephemerally and would not confer immortality. So, no other boon would do. Yama was secretly pleased with this disciple and elaborated on the nature of the true Self, which persists beyond the death of the body. The key of the realization is that this Self is inseparable from Brahman, the supreme spirit, the vital force in the universe. Yama's explanation is a succinct explication of Hindu metaphysics, .." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachiketa#Katha_Upanishad:_Nachiketa_and_Yama

 

[Aupmanyav]

The gospels all say Jesus died on the cross.

Copy cats?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mohammad went to heaven on Burraq and after meeting with Jesus and other prophets, returned to earth.

 

[RJM]

Copy cats?

No-one has to believe them, but that is what they all say. A person can believe Jesus did not die on the cross, but he cannot use the gospels to support the claim, because they clearly do not, imo

 

[RJM]

Why were the women who visited the tomb terrified if Jesus was dead (Mark 16:8)? What did they have to be terrified of if the Jews had succeeded in killing Jesus?

Alarmed? They loved Jesus. They came to annoint the body after the Sabbath had ended, and found the stone rolled away and the body gone, the graveclothes and the face covering neatly folded?

Jesus could conquer death and rise from the dead, why did he fear seeing the Jews after the crucifixion? particularly as death had no more power over him? (Romans 6:9)

Where does it say Jesus feared the Jews?

Why did Jesus disguise himself after the resurrection and appear only to the disciples? Surely, this was the great manifestation of his power and the fulfillment of the purpose of his creation. What was the purpose of keeping it all a secret now?

If Jesus was the risen Christ, why did he meet his disciples behind closed doors and not in the open as he used to? (John 20:19) (On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.)

That's how Christ chose to do it, on that occasion. He also met them in the open, on several occasions.

How many times did Jesus ascend to Heaven? Luke (23:43) states that Jesus told one of those crucified with him that he would be in Heaven that day with him. Does that mean that Jesus went up to Heaven after his death, came back to earth, and then ascended to Heaven once more?

He also descended into sheol before the resurrection. Heaven, hell, earth -- everywhere. Power over all creation

According to John, there appears to be yet another Ascension. When Mary Magdalene asked to touch him, Jesus forbade her saying that he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17). Later Jesus appears to the disciples and actually invites Thomas to touch him, (John 20:27) which must mean that Jesus had ascended and returned. Thus, is it possible that there were three Ascensions?

The author of Mark asserts that Jesus was taken up to Heaven and sat on the right of God (Mark 16:19). This remark could only come from Jesus himself or an eyewitness account. Since it was not Jesus who reported it, does that mean that the eyewitness actually went to Heaven and saw Jesus sitting on the right side of God? If so, was that person also taken to Heaven and brought back to report the incident?

Christ moveth as He will?

(edited)

 

[RJM]

Why did Jesus disguise himself after the resurrection and appear only to the disciples? Surely, this was the great manifestation of his power. and the fulfillment of the purpose of his creation. What was the purpose of keeping it all a secret now?

Jesus didn't push himself onto people. That was not his way. The people came to him for healing; he gave comfort for their souls. The close disciples followed him around.

He didn't disguise himself; the risen Christ revealed himself when and to whom he chose?

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

1. Why is it that there is not a single direct account of Jesus’s life by any of the twelve disciples or anyone who knew him personally? Can the word of those who did not know him or have the opportunity to hear him personally vouch for the accuracy of some of the reported remarks?
2. How was it that the Gospel writers were able to report accurately Jesus’s words, without committing them to memory or putting them on paper, some thirty to thirty-five years after his death before the first Gospel was written? Furthermore, given that:

• Those writing the Gospels did not hear the words directly from Jesus and it cannot, therefore, be said that the words left a lasting impression.
• They would have been passed on by word of mouth and therefore risked personal comments being added.
• There is no written record of Jesus’s words in Aramaic (his spoken language) thus necessitating a translation at some stage. In light of this, what weight can be placed on the reliability of some of the reported speeches? (Note this question does not relate to stories or parables since these can be more easily remembered.)

1. Why is it that Mark (the first written Gospel) is the shortest account when one would expect it to be the longest? Did the memories of later authors (e.g. John – written some 30-50 years later) become clearer with the passage of time?
2. If the Gospels are the word of God and the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, why are there so many contradictions in them? For example, why should God tell Mark that it was the third hour when Jesus was crucified (Mark 19:14) but tell John it was the sixth hour? (John 19:14). Why should God tell Matthew and Mark that the two who were crucified with Jesus reviled him (Matthew 27:44, Mark 15:32) but tell Luke that Jesus told one of them that he would be rewarded by being in Heaven with him that day? (Luke 23:39, 43) Why should God tell Matthew that the first ones to visit the sepulcher after the crucifixion were Mary Magdalene and the ‘other’ Mary (Matthew 28:1) but tell Luke it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and the other women (Luke 24:10) and tell John that it was only Mary Magdalene? (John 20:1)
3. Why is it that there is so much confusion and disagreement between the Gospel writers over the account of the crucifixion and resurrection? Is it fair to say that nobody was entirely sure of what actually happened?
4. The author of Mark asserts that Jesus was taken up to Heaven and sat on the right of God (Mark 16:19). This remark could only come from Jesus himself or an eyewitness account. Since it was not Jesus who reported it, does that mean that the eyewitness actually went to Heaven and saw Jesus sitting on the right side of God? If so, was that person also taken to Heaven and brought back to report the incident?
5. The disciples are said to have witnessed the Ascension (Mark 16:19), Luke 24:50). This must have been the most incredible experience of their lives. Why is it that not one of them wrote a single word concerning it afterward? Why is it that the only accounts related are by others who had no direct knowledge of the incident?

 

[RJM]

1. Why is it that there is not a single direct account of Jesus’s life by any of the twelve disciples or anyone who knew him personally? Can the word of those who did not know him or have the opportunity to hear him personally vouch for the accuracy of some of the reported remarks?
2. How was it that the Gospel writers were able to report accurately Jesus’s words, without committing them to memory or putting them on paper, some thirty to thirty-five years after his death before the first Gospel was written? Furthermore, given that:

• Those writing the Gospels did not hear the words directly from Jesus and it cannot, therefore, be said that the words left a lasting impression.
• They would have been passed on by word of mouth and therefore risked personal comments being added.
• There is no written record of Jesus’s words in Aramaic (his spoken language) thus necessitating a translation at some stage. In light of this, what weight can be placed on the reliability of some of the reported speeches? (Note this question does not relate to stories or parables since these can be more easily remembered.)

1. Why is it that Mark (the first written Gospel) is the shortest account when one would expect it to be the longest? Did the memories of later authors (e.g. John – written some 30-50 years later) become clearer with the passage of time?
2. If the Gospels are the word of God and the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, why are there so many contradictions in them? For example, why should God tell Mark that it was the third hour when Jesus was crucified (Mark 19:14) but tell John it was the sixth hour? (John 19:14). Why should God tell Matthew and Mark that the two who were crucified with Jesus reviled him (Matthew 27:44, Mark 15:32) but tell Luke that Jesus told one of them that he would be rewarded by being in Heaven with him that day? (Luke 23:39, 43) Why should God tell Matthew that the first ones to visit the sepulcher after the crucifixion were Mary Magdalene and the ‘other’ Mary (Matthew 28:1) but tell Luke it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and the other women (Luke 24:10) and tell John that it was only Mary Magdalene? (John 20:1)
3. Why is it that there is so much confusion and disagreement between the Gospel writers over the account of the crucifixion and resurrection? Is it fair to say that nobody was entirely sure of what actually happened?
4. The author of Mark asserts that Jesus was taken up to Heaven and sat on the right of God (Mark 16:19). This remark could only come from Jesus himself or an eyewitness account. Since it was not Jesus who reported it, does that mean that the eyewitness actually went to Heaven and saw Jesus sitting on the right side of God? If so, was that person also taken to Heaven and brought back to report the incident?
5. The disciples are said to have witnessed the Ascension (Mark 16:19), Luke 24:50). This must have been the most incredible experience of their lives. Why is it that not one of them wrote a single word concerning it afterward? Why is it that the only accounts related are by others who had no direct knowledge of the incident?

All that stuff is the subject of debate and consideration amongst learned professors and scholars, and there are countless writings around the subject.

However, in the end, regardless of their differences, these people generally all agree on three things: that Jesus lived, was baptized by John, and was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

Jesus's closest follower Cephas and his own brother James agreed that Jesus died on the cross, and told Paul. The letters of Paul were the first Christian writings, while the gospels were still taking shape.

Clearly, from the very earliest, it was the life of Christ, and not just his words, that was considered to be at the heart of his message.

 

[RJM]

@Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi

However as you do not seem to want to discuss my replies, and perhaps do not even read them -- instead just rehashing the same thing with new cut-and-paste posts -- I will be discouraged from responding to further posts

 

[muhammad_isa]

Clearly, from the very earliest, it was the life of Christ, and not just his words, that was considered to be at the heart of his message.

I totally agree with that. It is the life of Jesus and not his death that actually teaches us something.
His death is more about constructing an agenda around a specific creed.

 

[RJM]

I totally agree with that. It is the life of Jesus and not his death that actually teaches us something.
His death is more about constructing an agenda around a specific creed.

Life, death and resurrection -- according to his closest follower Cephas, and his own brother, James. Unless they lied to Paul. Or unless Paul lied about meeting them, in the first Christian writings while the gospels were still taking form. Impossible the crucifixion and resurrection were not discussed.

But since on the subject, what is it about 'the life of Jesus, and not his death, that actually teaches us something'?

 

[RJM]

You say Jesus survived the cross and was taken up alive, by Allah. Amadiyya say Jesus survived the cross and died later in India.

People believe all kinds of things about Jesus. However all the Gospels and all the New Testament writings, say that Jesus died on the cross.

The gospels cannot be manipulated to support that Jesus did not die on the cross. Other sources must be quoted. I can say bears don't like honey if I want to, but I cannot quote Winnie the Pooh stories to support that particular theory. That's just not the way they tell it

The gospels say what they say. They don't mean the opposite of what they say, imo ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what is it about 'the life of Jesus, and not his death, that actually teaches us something'?

Ummm .. I presume when you said "it was the life of Christ, and not just his words, that was considered to be at the heart of his message", that you are saying that you meant that his death is at the "heart of his message" ?

What does his death & ressurrection teach us? I can't think of anything particularly.. isn't that more about creed than anything else?
Whereas the parables etc. have a spiritual message .. they are the "heart" for me.

 

[RJM]

Ummm .. I presume when you said "it was the life of Christ, and not just his words, that was considered to be at the heart of his message", that you are saying that you meant that his death is at the "heart of his message" ?

Life, death and resurrection. That is how the gospels and new testament tell it. Do you have independent written evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Life, death and resurrection. That is how the gospels and new testament tell it. Do you have independent written evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross?

I looked it up on Google and found this..

"The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the focal point of the whole purpose of God with the human race"

That makes me wonder about people who existed before Jesus was born .. they wouldn't have known about this purpose.
Why did Moses fail to teach them this? Will God forgive them all, and can they be saved without this "whole purpose" ?

 

[RJM]

I looked it up on Google and found this..

"The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the focal point of the whole purpose of God with the human race"

That makes me wonder about people who existed before Jesus was born .. they wouldn't have known about this purpose.
Why did Moses fail to teach them this? Will God forgive them all, and can they be saved without this "whole purpose" ?

Can wiki provide reputable evidence contrary to the gospels that Jesus did not die on the cross? Please at least acknowledge the question

 

[RJM]

The Amadiyya do have evidence of sorts. They have an oral tradition and a grave and a footprint, and a written report of a conversation with Jesus. That is their sincere belief, to which they are surely entitled. The problem is trying to make the gospels acknowledge that Jesus survived. The gospels do not. The gospels say the opposite.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can wiki provide reputable evidence contrary to the gospels that Jesus did not die on the cross? Please at least acknowledge the question

I have no idea..
I was not commenting whether Jesus died on the cross or not..

I was merely pointing out that I consider what Jesus taught us [ "his words", if you like ] to be the heart of his message.

I don't believe that we should follow Jesus in the sense that we should attempt to walk on water or hope to be resurrected
in the sense that we will rise again in three days or something.

Can Jews "be saved" without believing that Jesus' death and resurrection is God's "whole purpose" or not?

 

[RJM]

In quietness and humility is my relationship with my God. I believe God responds to every sincere soul, regardless of faith or religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps you can find this in the Skeptic's Bible. However, your beliefs are your right, right or wrong.