did jesus really live

[Hotoke]

for those religious dudes who cant stand criticism leave now

i am talking about the historical jesus. first point is the 4 gospels of the new testament: matthew mark luke and john. they tell the story of jesus right? Note,that we dont know anything about those four dudes except that they wrote about the life of jesus christ but the gospels do not seem to be written by matthew mark luke and john because it does not say: the gospel of matthew, the gospel of luke but the gospel according to mike etc. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels. nobody knows when they were written.

according to biblical scholars the gospel of matthew is the oldest. but they also say that the gospel of mark is not the original one.in the same way that the writers of matthew and luke copied and enlarged the gospel of mark, mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original mark. what it was, when it was written no one knows. christian scholars admitted that the gospel of john is not an historical document but an interpretation of jesus's life.it gives us an picture of what jesus was supposed to be like and also that it is based on greek philosophy. the gospels of mark matthew and luke give different views on what christ was supposed to be like. the difference between the gospels of matthew mark and luke and the gospel of john is so clear that every critic agrees, that if jesus taught matthew mark and luke, he could not have taught john. why? simply because in the first three gospels we meet an entirely different christ then in the gospel of christ. they all give a different view on jesus, mark says that christ was a man, matthew and luke sya he was a demi god, and john claimed he was god.

the gospels were all written in a different time. how can gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? these books are usually called a romance.

christ was a jew right? and his disciples to, that means that there language was Aramaic. But the gospels were written in greek. Every christian scholar said that they were originally greek(Erasmus) This proves they were not written by christs disciples, they were jewish fisherman, they cloud not have learned greek. 90 % of the population in hose days were busy surviving nly the rich were leadin a good life. also all the gospels are based on a earleir copy of the original gospels. so we have a copy of a copy of a copy like a rumor always changing.

there were many gospels in those days, a large number of them were fakes and stories.Everybody wrote gospels and attached christian names on them to make it look important and holy and stuff. from all this literature, the church chose a bunch of men and let them wrote a book inspired by god. if christ was real why was it neccessary to forge documents to prove his existence?

everybody who lives must have been born.(for young users ask you parents)(my apologies to those who were born in an egg) when was jesus born? matthew says that jesus was born when herod was king of judea. luke says something else. again they contradict eachother.

where was jesus born? betlehem or nazareth? again the gospels tell something else. Nazareth never even existed as a city. the encyclopedia biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "we cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of nazareth in jesus' time

after the birth of christ he vanishes. we know nothing about him only when he grows up. if the gospels know about christs life why dont we hear anything from his early years. clearly he was always the son of god and not only when he got older?

Christ was seen many times in jerusalem. he was followed by his disciples and his believers. they even sung for christ on the streets in jerusalem i hear. why was it neccesary for a priest to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? only a man in disguise or some one who is hiding is betrayed but jesus was on the streets of jerusalem all the time. they could have arrested him like that.

the crucifixion is a true fairy tale. teh civilization of rome was the highest in the world. there courts were a model of fairness. the law ruled the roman empire and everybody followed it. no innocent man would get arrested for no reason. but jesus did. Are we to believe that an innocent man was brought before a roman court? The judge declared him innocent and the crowd yelled crucify him crucify him and the judged suddenly changed his mind and let him be crucified. this is real fiction

I have more but i need sleep Post will be continued

[atrueoriginall]

for those religious dudes who cant stand criticism leave now

I have more but i need sleep Post will be continued

Hotoke: Sleep on this. Shouldn't you first load your guns before writing such sentences. Wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself.

[Hotoke]

when one is faced with facts and defeat one tends to attack the person on grammar looks etc

english is not my first language so call 555- bite me if you dont like my gramar

Edited December 12, 2004 by Hotoke

[saucy]

First of all, the bible says that there aren't enough books in the world that can contain all the works of Jesus. Is it possible that John wrote about things that the other three didn't? All three gospels aren't about the exact same events at the exact same time. Different events, different times. John saw things Matthew wasn't around for, and so on. Jesus died in AD 33 and the first gospel account was written I believe in AD 62, but the ACTS and such were written long before that by Paul. What do we know about the disciples? No just that they wrote the gospels. We know their professions, some were fisherman, Matthew was a doctor and Mark was a tax collector. We know around the time when they wrote the gospels, where they traveled, who they spoke to and even how and when they died. We know a lot of information about them that you don't realize. If you have Matthew, a written book by Matthew, that would be the original Matthew. Jewish scholars re-write the scrolls with accuracy (I mean ACCURACY! If a single word was missing, they re-wrote the whole document). Isn't it obvious that if you have a copy, you don't have the original copy? Who said that the Jews had to know only aramaic and only that? It's possible that they could've known greek or Hebrew or any other language. Don't just assume such things.

When Jesus was born, from Bethlehem, we know he went to Egypt for a time because Herod was killing all the children to try and kill the messiah. It was also prophesied that Jesus would go to Egypt. After Herod's death they went and lived in Nazareth. Nazareth didn't exist? I guess the writers just pulled that name out of a hat. Archeologists proved that a Nazareth did exist, but was a small town, a town of no importance. Up until age 30, we know Jesus grew in knowledge and stature. He got smart, he grew large and he did some carpenter work, obviously. He must've worked with Joseph, his legal father, who was also a carpenter.

The romans were fair? I don't think so. The romans were experts on human torture and death. The crucifixion was a torture device created to hang people in the air and slowly suffocate them for hours, even days! They often beat and whipped and flogged their prisoners. They crucified people near city entrances as means to scare them and remind them on how brutal they were. They were immoral and evil and ugly people. They threw people into the colosseam (sorry, can't spell) for no reason often time. It's also historical proof that the romans never punished severely their own people...the romans. Crucifixion and such flogging and torture was only reserved for those who weren't Roman. Jesus was jewish and was a great teacher and prophet. Many people loved him. He posed a threat to the High Priests. They plotted to kill him several times and even rose up to try and stone him because he spoke blasheme words according to them. Pilate never gave order to kill Jesus. After the high priests brought Jesus to him, then to Herod, then back to Pilate, Pilate feared an uprising and told the high priests, he would flog him, but not kill him. After the flogging, the high priests weren't happy so they went back to pilate and again fearing an uprising, he told them to do what they want with Jesus. Pilate even offered to give up Barrabas in exchange for Jesus' life. Pilate didn't want to kill the innocent man, but his hands were tied.

[witch~hunter]

Just a tad off there saucy. Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Gov. He also wrote Logia in Aramaic.

Mark came from money, and most likely got most of his info from Peter.

Luke was a doctor.

John served Jesus as a pillar of the new church and lived until sometime after 98AD. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen all say John wrote The Gospel According to John.

All of these men were educated, and Greek was to their world as English is to ours.

[Hotoke]

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic

But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction

miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination?

If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds.Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world

[Hotoke]

First of all, the bible says that there aren't enough books in the world that can contain all the works of Jesus. Is it possible that John wrote about things that the other three didn't? All three gospels aren't about the exact same events at the exact same time. Different events, different times. John saw things Matthew wasn't around for, and so on. Jesus died in AD 33 and the first gospel account was written I believe in AD 62, but the ACTS and such were written long before that by Paul. What do we know about the disciples? No just that they wrote the gospels. We know their professions, some were fisherman, Matthew was a doctor and Mark was a tax collector. We know around the time when they wrote the gospels, where they traveled, who they spoke to and even how and when they died. We know a lot of information about them that you don't realize. If you have Matthew, a written book by Matthew, that would be the original Matthew. Jewish scholars re-write the scrolls with accuracy (I mean ACCURACY! If a single word was missing, they re-wrote the whole document). Isn't it obvious that if you have a copy, you don't have the original copy? Who said that the Jews had to know only aramaic and only that? It's possible that they could've known greek or Hebrew or any other language. Don't just assume such things

the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four.The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.They also describe a different christ.There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. They could never have learned Greek. Learning was something for the rich and monks. they were the only ones educated. all lowerclass people like matthew mark luke and john could not have learned greek. they were busy survivin like al the other lower class people in those days.

When Jesus was born, from Bethlehem, we know he went to Egypt for a time because Herod was killing all the children to try and kill the messiah. It was also prophesied that Jesus would go to Egypt. After Herod's death they went and lived in Nazareth. Nazareth didn't exist? I guess the writers just pulled that name out of a hat. Archeologists proved that a Nazareth did exist, but was a small town, a town of no importance. Up until age 30, we know Jesus grew in knowledge and stature. He got smart, he grew large and he did some carpenter work, obviously. He must've worked with Joseph, his legal father, who was also a carpenter

Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth

The romans were fair? I don't think so. The romans were experts on human torture and death. The crucifixion was a torture device created to hang people in the air and slowly suffocate them for hours, even days! They often beat and whipped and flogged their prisoners. They crucified people near city entrances as means to scare them and remind them on how brutal they were. They were immoral and evil and ugly people. They threw people into the colosseam (sorry, can't spell) for no reason often time. It's also historical proof that the romans never punished severely their own people...the romans. Crucifixion and such flogging and torture was only reserved for those who weren't Roman. Jesus was jewish and was a great teacher and prophet. Many people loved him. He posed a threat to the High Priests. They plotted to kill him several times and even rose up to try and stone him because he spoke blasheme words according to them. Pilate never gave order to kill Jesus. After the high priests brought Jesus to him, then to Herod, then back to Pilate, Pilate feared an uprising and told the high priests, he would flog him, but not kill him. After the flogging, the high priests weren't happy so they went back to pilate and again fearing an uprising, he told them to do what they want with Jesus. Pilate even offered to give up Barrabas in exchange for Jesus' life. Pilate didn't want to kill the innocent man, but his hands were tied

Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him?

Edited December 12, 2004 by Hotoke

[Hotoke]

no one interested in reading this?

[FreyKade]

i read it....i just didnt feel like i had anything to input as i agree with what you wrote

[Seraphina]

Hotoke, it amazes me that in 181 posts, I'm only just coming into contact with you...you strike me as having researched this very thoroughly, almost to the point of going through it all with a fine comb, and well done to you for it

If only the people who buy the bible mythology would do the same, it wouldn't take the humble minority to do all the leg work for them

[Q-La]

In the years immediately following Christ's death and resurrection(for believers anyway) persecution were so intense and christians has to resolve to using symbols to identify each other if they did not want to be totally wiped out. When a christian meet another person supposed to be christian, he/she will will use his/her toe to draw a fish shape on the floor. Besides the lamb, which obviously represent the lamb of God, the fish was the most common icon of Christ, as in their language(aramic?) fish use the same alphabets with jesus (iesus or somthing like that).

I am doubtful that historical evidence (or the lack of it) will convert anyone's beliefs so let keep this cool and at least we can have an educational discussion .

[saucy]

The people who put the bible together put in Matthew's gospel and called it the "Gospel According to Matthew" because it's his version of what he saw. It's not Matthew's gospel specificially, but the gospel according to Matthew. Same goes with the other three.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

Ok, the part about the lamb. Jesus was said to be the 'sacrificial lamb'. The symbol used was also the Fish, which symbolized Pisces (sacrifice). It didn't imply that He never lived.

As for the disciples speaking other languages it was said that the Holy Spirit came down and gave them the knowledge to 'different tongues' as in languages.

As far as Jesus being crucified, why would you think this wopuldn't be possible? Innocent people are put to death with the death penalty even TODAY on a supposedly 'fair' system. The threat was Ceasar, who was higher than Pilate, and he had to save face.

[FreyKade]

As for the disciples speaking other languages it was said that the Holy Spirit came down and gave them the knowledge to 'different tongues' as in languages.

401466[/snapback]

so why, when the disciples speak in tongue, its the holy spirit. and if anyone else does, its the work of the devil??/

[warden]

Luck is completely a human invention refering to an event or a series of events in which something remarkable happened. There's no magical mystical power behind it.

Oh, and you don't need to post the same forum twice. That's completely pointless.

395903[/snapback]

How the heck wa I suppossed to know this is my first poating and I thought they were all seperate!!! oopsie

395966[/snapback]

I`m not one that mocks the BIBLE or anyones religion but i still find it hard to believe that so many people world wide mock ufo`s ,paranormal activites, cryptozoology etc but still live there lives around something or someone of which there is no proof

[Hotoke]

Ok, the part about the lamb. Jesus was said to be the 'sacrificial lamb'. The symbol used was also the Fish, which symbolized Pisces (sacrifice). It didn't imply that He never lived.

As for the disciples speaking other languages it was said that the Holy Spirit came down and gave them the knowledge to 'different tongues' as in languages.

As far as Jesus being crucified, why would you think this wopuldn't be possible? Innocent people are put to death with the death penalty even TODAY on a supposedly 'fair' system. The threat was Ceasar, who was higher than Pilate, and he had to save face.

401466[/snapback]

jesus had done nothing wrong at all. he was innocent. is it realistic that civilised rome put an innocent man to death?

Innocent people are put to death with the death penalty even TODAY on a supposedly 'fair' system

these people are 90% of the time framed and the other 10% are mistakes from investigations. Human made errors

Edited December 13, 2004 by Hotoke

[beowulf]

John served Jesus as a pillar of the new church and lived until sometime after 98AD. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen all say John wrote The Gospel According to John.

None of the writers notated wrote prior to 160 CE. Scholars have placed the date of John’s gospel at no earlier than 120CE. In 154 CE the gospels were first mentioned (but not by name) and author names were assigned around 180 CE (at about the time these writers were doing the most of their work!

The people who put the bible together put in Matthew's gospel and called it the "Gospel According to Matthew" because it's his version of what he saw.

No Saucy, they didn’t name it until 180 CE and then they gave the four acceptable gospels names of “Apostles” to give them validity!

As far as Jesus being crucified, why would you think this wopuldn't be possible?

During the Roman occupation, there were numerous rebels by the name of Jesus that were crucified ranging from the Essene “Great Teacher” Jesus bar Abbas (Son of the Father), thru “The Egyptian”(name Jesus, family name lost to history) to Jesus ben Panthera (supposedly born of a Jewish woman named Mary, who was married to a carpenter named Joseph. Jesus was a result an affair of Mary with a Roman solider named Panthera. Jesus was stoned and then “hung on a tree”). Those were the “historical” Jesuses and probably were “smushed” together (gee don’t you love my scientific terms) to make the biblical Jesus. So, it wouldn’t be possible for Jesus to be crucified in that he never existed!

[Vox]

The same can be said about UFOlogists, Cryptozoologists, Ghost Investigators etc. Why believe all that and not in Religion?

[Stellar]

The same can be said about UFOlogists, Cryptozoologists, Ghost Investigators etc. Why believe all that and not in Religion?

401719[/snapback]

Indeed. Why not be skeptical about those too. I am. And honestly, thats a very poor argument. It shows that you have nothing to say on the subject, so you search for things exterior to the subject in an effort to catch one or two non religious people who believe in one of the above mentionned subjects.

Edited December 13, 2004 by Stellar

[panther10758]

Actually its a very fair arguement. Why indeed believe in UFO's etc (with no proof) and yet doubt Jesus whose life has been documented!?

[Stellar]

Actually its a very fair arguement.

Its a fair argument, but it brings us offtopic. The topic is about jesus. Whether someone else who believes or shouldnt believe in aliens from the future comming and abducting him doesnt change a thing in this topic.

[panther10758]

I didnt see it that way I saw it as a valid arguement to a point/counter point but then now we are off topic lol

[beowulf]

yet doubt Jesus whose life has been documented!?

Actually Jesus can't be documented either, not with contemporary secular documentation. Paul's letters are the first documentation, followed by the gospels and other books. Paul wrote a quarter of a century after the fact, never gave any details and seemed to be writing about only a spiritual Jesus. The gospels and other books came several decades and generations later. There is no documentation for Jesus except the bible! Not acceptable as proof, there is no documentation for Superman except DC Comics - same difference!

[Athenian]

You know what is funny about Jesus...?

It does not matter if he was an incarnated God.

It does not matter if he was a Messiah.

It does not matter if he was a Space Alien.

It does not matter if he was Superman.

It does not matter if he existed.

What matters is that...

He was an innocent man... He did no wrong and harmed nobody... And they killed him for it... They tortured and killed him for it... He was crucified for nothing, just for the benefit of some corrupt priests.

They killed him for nothing...

Understand...?

Damn the foolishness of humanity!!!!

Edited December 13, 2004 by Athenian

[Loge]

Thomas the Skeptic!

Allow me to transcribe the touching story of a wounded soldier written by Mr. Mario Roso de Luna, the ingenious Theosophical writer.

This story is found in "The Book That Kills Death", or "The Book of the Jinn" which is a fine piece of work by Mr. de Luna. The story is as follows:

"Strange news came to us when we were in the ditch at war....certain rumours were spreading along the stretch from Switzerland to the sea, yet their origin or authenticity were unknown. Word came and went quickly and I remember the moment in which my partner George Casay looked at me strangely with his blue eyes and asked me if I had seen the friend of the wounded ones. He then told me what he knew in respect to the rumour that was circulating. He told me that after many violent battles, a man dressed in white had been seen bending over the wounded soldiers as bullets were fired all around him and grenades fell at his feet. However, nothing had the power to harm him. He was a hero superior to all heroes or something greater still.

"This mysterious person to whom the French call the Comrade dressed in white seemed to be everywhere at the same time. In Nancy, Argona, in Soissons, in Ypres and everywhere all men spoke of him with their voices lowered. However, some of them smiled and said that the ditch was affecting their nerves.

"I was frequently being careless with my words and I exclaimed that I must see in order to believe, and that I needed the German knife to wound me so that I may fall to the ground.

"The following day, we were at battle at the Front, the canons were roaring from morning till night and began again the following day. At midday we received the command to move in and take over at the Front which was two hundred yards from our position. As we were advancing we realized that our canons had failed to fire at the moment of attack. We needed hearts of steel in order to march on. None of us thought, we only acted and we continued to march on.

"We had advanced 150 yards when we realized that we had acted poorly. Our captain commanded us to take cover, and precisely at that moment both of my legs were wounded and by divine mercy I fell into a hole. I must have fainted because when I opened my eyes I was alone. The pain was excruciating, however, I remained motionless for I was in fear that the Germans would see me being only 50 yards away from them. I was hoping that someone would have pity on me. Soon I realized that there were men near by that would have considered themselves in danger within the obscurity of the night if they had known that a comrade was still alive.

"I felt relieved as nightfall grew nearer. The night fell and I suddenly heard footsteps that were not weak but firm and strong, as if neither obscurity nor death could have altered their movement. I never would have guessed who was approaching. Even having seen the clarity of the white cloth within the obscurity I assumed that it was a farmer wearing a shirt and it even occurred to me to be an insane woman. But suddenly, with amazement -whether of happiness or terror, I do not know- I realized that he was the comrade dressed in white and at that precise moment the German rifles began to fire. The bullets could not have missed such a target because he raised his arms begging them to stop. He then retracted his arms and remained in the form of a cross, as the crosses that are frequently seen along side the roads of France. He then spoke. His words were very familiar. I remember only the beginning of his words, 'If you have known', and the end, 'But now they are hidden to your eyes.' Then he bent over and took me into his arms, I, the heaviest man of my group. He carried me as if I were a child. I suppose that I fell asleep because when I awoke that childlike feeling was gone. I was a man wishing to know what I could do in order to serve and help my friend.

"He was looking towards the stream holding his hands together as if he were praying. I then saw that he too was wounded. I believe that I saw a deep wound on his hand and as he prayed a drop of blood fell from his wound to the ground. I screamed without control because the wound appeared to me to be more terrifying than any of the wounds that I had seen throughout that bitter war.

"'You are also wounded' I said with humbleness. I do not know whether he heard me or whether he saw it in my expression but he answered with gentleness, 'This is an ancient wound but it has been bothering me lately.' I then noticed that the same cruel mark appeared on his feet.

"Amazingly enough, I did not realize who he was until I saw his feet. I then recognized him as the living Christ. I had heard the Capelin speak of Him a few weeks before but now I understood that He had come towards me, towards I who had removed Him from my life in the ardent fever of my youth. I wished to speak with Him and give Him thanks but I could not find the words. He then stood and said, 'Remain close to the water today and I will come for you tomorrow, I have a duty for you to do for me.' Moments later He was gone.

"As I waited for Him I wrote this in order not to forget this experience. I feel weak and lonely and my pain increases but I have His promise and I know that He will come for me tomorrow."

This is the story of the soldier written by Mr. Mario Roso de Luna in his book "The Book That Kills Death". This concrete fact infallibly demonstrates that Jesus still lives with the same physical body the He used in the Holy Land.