Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture

PREFACE

Please note: There will be no voting—this is for information only; as well, comments are welcome, as are PMs and email with any questions about this essay. However, any comment which is simply "testimony" otherwise known as witnessing by churchy people, argumentative, or preachy, will be deleted immediately. This is not a forum for debating—most of the facts are from the bible itself and speak for themselves, or from verifiable and known history. The King James Version of the bible is principally used unless noted otherwise As well, I've used Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which gives the usage of every word in the KJV of the bible as well as where to find them. Other bibles say essentially the same basic things.

This essay deals with the much preached idea of Jesus offering eternal life, whether the bible proves he was Resurrected, and the promise of the elect being resurrected otherwise known as being Raptured, which is a part of the promise to those who are said to be faithful in their belief that Jesus is the Messiah—the Christ—who is said to bring said salvation and eternal life to those who "believe" and are "saved". It is in sections for your reading convenience.

My writings were originally intended for lesbians who have been intimidated from birth, shamed, humiliated, pushed to feel guilty, and made to believe that they are an abomination in the sight of the god of the bible. They have been made to feel a need to hide their true sense of who and what they are in body and mind. Many have given in and attempted to conform to that "accepted normal" life that society, culture, and especially religion, say that it is how they should live.

However, lesbians are not the only ones to be hounded by these erroneous beliefs. Gays, Transgenders, Transsexuals, Intersex, and Transvestites also have been subjected to these same religious and cultural errors. Therefore all are welcome to read these writings, and more, to take heart.

Culture is the hidden, indeed, invisible, set of genes that no microscope can see, but they surely rule the lives of most.

Equal rights in all respects is sought by everyone though too many feel that the right to marriage should only be as dictated by religious beliefs, and that being between a man and a woman only. Love and which person you are to share your life with is not something that should be dictated by church or state, but by consenting individuals.

At the present, many states have passed laws restricting who may marry. In all cases, where challenged, these laws have been overturned by either state of federal courts. There are now about twenty states and Washington DC where same-sex marriage is now permitted by law.

Still, states such as Utah, are now moving to challenge same-sex marriages by appealing to the US Supreme Court.

All of this is basically driven by religious beliefs, and those beliefs originating in their interpretation of what they believe the bible teaches—in essence, what the god of the bible has decreed and should be followed by one and all without exception. Many even believe that the bible should rule one and all, and if they could, they'd make our country a Theocracy—a country run according to Judeo-Christian biblical beliefs.

Fundamentalists are particularly egregious in their push to have us all believe that the word of the god of the bible is the word of the one true god, and creator of all as in Genesis, and that that the bible is without error. Many of them have gone so far as to take it as literal that the earth is only six thousand years old, or perhaps ten thousand at the most.

As stated, all of this culminates in the bible believers saying that it is saving your soul and thereby earning you eternal life after death when the resurrection and the rapture come at the end times. But where did these beliefs come from? The questions we'll look at here are:

What is the origin of the resurrection?

What does the bible say about it, and when did it start?

Who was Jesus?

The idea of salvation and eternal life will reveal itself with the answer to these questions. Of course, all will come from the bible itself as well as objective and verifiable history as well, in some cases, of known and proven science.

As I said in my last essay ("Which God, If Any"): Early on, I always heard that there were many paths to truth. That sounded as if it was logical. That was then. Since that time, I have learned thatthe path to any truth had to be laden with verifiable facts that are germane to the subject.

Since this is for information for those in need of the truth of the lies we've been fed for two thousand years (from at least the time of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, if you wish to go back further),as stated earlier, there will be no voting.

Warning: Any comments that are argumentative, or preachy, will be immediately deleted. This is not a forum for "witnessing" or debating religious beliefs.

Please take your time reading it to get the full effects of the facts I'm presenting, and definitely, please don't take my word for anything, rather check out what I've written, especially where the bible is quoted, or known history is cited. Unlike the churches of old (and many in the present) I encourage readers to check out what is presented in order to verify for yourself whether my facts are as stated. Not beliefs, but facts.

The bible is voluminous and that has made it easy for religions and preachers to cherry pick what they would tell us, and often out of context as originally intended thereby "guiding" you in what they would have you to believe. On occasion the bible has something very good to say, and one is:

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." (KJV, I Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 21.)

However, in this case I would say: Hold fast that which is objectively verified as fact.

Once again, as I said in my previous essay ("Which God, If Any"): Lies are not to be found on any path to truth. Suppositions by men who are thought to be learned are subject to scrutiny and verification by facts, and not conjecture called beliefs. Going to the source of their "facts" and verifying them is a must if one is to stay on the path to any truth.

If you are after seeking the truth, that is, and in particular, about the God of the bible.

Some History First

Some may say that the resurrection and rapture first came from Ezekiel, said to be a prophet in Babylon during the Babylonian Exile of the 590s BCE. This is from the famous chapter 37 which speaks of the Valley of Bones that were raised up and brought back to life.

This is not meant to indicate a real resurrection of any individuals. A reading of that whole chapter will tell you that it was a metaphor for God's supposed promise to make Israel a nation again as in verse 21:

"...Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heather, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:"

The "bones" with the revived flesh are symbols of Israel once again becoming a nation.

So where did this idea of a resurrection really come from?

Once more, the one place where you wouldn't expect to find any real truth, we find a bit of it in a Catholic bible, "The Catholic Family Connections Bible" (© Saint Mary's Press, 2010).

It is there that before the book of Daniel in the Old Testament that we are given some not so surprising information about it in their "In Depth" portion which says in part:

"Inspired Author: unknown, writing around 164 BC, during the persecution of Israel by Antiochus IV Epiphanes."

After the death of Alexander the Great, his kingdom was divided up by his generals, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the successor at the time of the Maccabean revolt during the revolt in the 160s or so BCE, that brought about the book of Daniel—Daniel is a story told as if historical, which it is not as you'll see later on. It continues:

"Scholars question whether Daniel was an actual person. If he was, he lived in the sixth century BC—but the Book of Daniel was written four hundred years later, during the reign of an evil Greek-Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This was also the time of the Maccabean revolt, told about in First and Second Maccabees..." [which tells of the Jewish revolt and finally, the entrance of the Romans—The books of I and II Maccabees are included in the Catholic bibles as non-canonical books]. "King Antiochus desecrated the Temple and attempted to erase many of Israel's religious practices. To many in Israel, this seemed like the end of the world."

The revolt is historical fact!

"The author of the Book of Daniel writes about the great hero [and prophet] Daniel to give the people hope during this persecution [by Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the revolt]."

It is here that the idea of the resurrection and the rapture first began, as well as the time when the Pharisees began—they believed in the resurrection promised in Daniel, but others such as the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection.

A part of the books of Maccabees is truly historical—the Jews did revolt against Antiochus and set the temple worship back as it was before he desecrated it, and elected their own priest, but there was a falling out among the Jews. Somewhere along the line thereabouts the Romans were called in, and they stayed as history knows.

It was in this time that what we know are called Zealots, began along with the purist Pharisees.

The Catholic bible used in this essay also has an information box—"Did You Know?"—that sets forth that "Most of the Old Testament contains no indication of a belief in life after death. ... The understanding of personal resurrection developed quite late in Israel's existence. " (Daniel, chapter 12, verses 1 & 2) [Bold mine.]

This, then, is said to be where the idea of the resurrection came from, and was propagated principally by the Pharisees. The apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and many say that Jesus was too, which would be in keeping with what are said to be his words, as he alluded to the writings in the book of Daniel.

As you can see already, the resurrection had over one hundred years to take hold in the consciousness of many Jews by the time of Jesus' birth.

Resurrection

Oddly enough, it is true—the word resurrection is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. The first use of the word is in the gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 22, verse 23, and is said to be spoken by one of the Sadducees (who are usually a member of Judah's ruling class as well as the Sanhedrin, that can act as a court of law—Jewish law).

The word rapture is no where to be found in the bible.

What is a fact, and verifiable, is that the idea of a resurrection and rapture are something that was never originally envisioned in the Old Testament until the time of Daniel—if there ever was a Daniel. Was there a Daniel? Is Daniel a fictive as is much of the bible so far?

This is important, so let's look at the book titled Daniel.

The Book of Daniel

This book must be dissected in detail to show how it is said to be written by an unknown person or persons. If read as a believer, all of these things will be missed. I know this for a fact for I had read Daniel several times and never noticed these telltale items that signaled this book as a fictive pure and simple. Yes, I was at one time a "willfully blind" believer, but no more.

There are several things that become apparent when one reads it with an objective and critical eye. It starts off in narrative form telling of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, taking some young Jewish children said to be "...well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had the ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans."

These children are then identified as Daniel, who was given the new name of Belteshazzar (as opposed to the later supposed king Belshazzar); Hananiah renamed Shadrach; Mishael renamed Meshach, and Azariah, renamed Abednego.

In chapter 2 we are told of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream, and Daniel's eventual interpretation of that dream. In chapter 3 we're told, still in narrative form, of Nebuchadnezzar's image of gold, and the famed fiery furnace into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were cast into for not bowing to the idol, and their miraculous survival of that furnace.

In chapter 4, we suddenly have the change from narrative to first person with Nebuchadnezzar speaking of another dream. After saying that his usual wise men had no interpretation, we're told that he says that "...at last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god..."

Here we see two things, the first being the narrative form being changed to first person, which the writer obviously had to make up in great part, and second, why would Nebuchadnezzar find a need to let us know the original name of Daniel as well as his new name. These are indicative of a story being told by an unnamed person, and possibly more than one person who edited a part of it "for clarity" as it were, for his proposed readers.

Further, in that same chapter 4, in verse 19, we have a sudden shift back to narrative form, another tell-tale marker of an unknown writer.

Another example of the possibility of several writers comes up in this chapter—in verse 34, Nebuchadnezzar is again speaking in first person form until the end of the chapter.

* * * *

Before going on in chapter 5, we need to have in mind a list of the kings of Babylon beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, who took the Jews captive to Babylon. This is necessary in order to make a goodly portion of the rest of the book of Daniel make sense to you, and to refer back to as needed. The kings are:

Nebuchadnezzar 604 ---- 562 BC

Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) 562 ---- 560 BC

Neriglissar 560 ---- 556 BC

Labashi-Marduk 556 BC

Nabonidus 556 ---- 539 BC, the last Mesopotamian king of Babylon, who often left rule to his son Belshazzar.

Note here that Nabonidus is the last king of Babylon and is the father of Belshazzar.

Now one can see that suddenly, in chapter 5, verse 1 says:

"Belshazzar the king made a great banquet..."

First off, as noted above in the list of kings of Babylon, Belshazzar wasnot the king of Babylon, but the crown prince who acted in behalf of his father, the king, Nabonidus.

However, this is the chapter of Daniel that has become a staple of our culture for the saying: "The handwriting is on the wall," or " Read the handwriting on the wall" which will be seen momentarily.

That said, we can see that there is an obvious error on the part of the writer in skipping from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar. The other error is in saying that Belshazzar was the last king as will also be seen in a moment, and for that matter, that he was a king at all instead of as acting king. More errors will also become obvious.

The writer, or writers, of the book of Daniel obviously knew their history of the time in general, but not in detail. These errors are proofs that this is not a book inspired by any god, and certainly not the god of the bible. No god would have made these gross errors, much less those that follow in this chapter and beyond. For any wishing to verify the kings of Babylon, it can easily be done on the Internet or in any history book detailing with that time. I hope you do if you have any questions on Babylonian kingship.

Literotica does not permit any links to be included in any submissions else I would give them here, but as I said, it's easy to verify this.

Further proof that the writer, or writers, of the book of Daniel did not know the specifics of the history of this time is seen in verse 2 which has him ordering the vessels taken from Jerusalem to drink from. In one salient part, is says:

"...commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem..."

Nebuchadnezzar was not his father; his father, was Nabonidus. Verse 11 continues this error of parentage when the handwriting on the wall appears out of nowhere and none can interpret what it says when his queen tells him that Daniel can interpret it. It says:

"There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;"

The queen makes the same error not once, but twice in the same sentence, that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's father. Even worse, they have Daniel make the same error when he says in verse 18:

"O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom..."

And again, this error by Daniel is repeated in verse 22:

"And thou his son, O Belshazzar..."

Error upon error is made. The interpretation is in verses 23 through 28 as:

"...God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. Thou art found weighed in the balances, and are found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

Sloppily, the last two verses of the chapter, 30 and 31 are in total error! They say:

"In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Darius was not the king of the Persians who took over Babylon as further indicated by chapter 6 continuing as if Darius was that king.

It was not Darius, but Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians in the battle of Opis, then entered Babylon later and arrested Nabonidus, the real king of Babylon after defeating the Babylonian army.

This is objectively historical and proven by history as well as The Nabonidus Chronicle found in the Middle East in a single clay tablet and bought by The British Museum in 1879.

Continuing their sloppy history, they start chapter 6 off as if it was Darius who conquered Babylon.

Additionally, Darius being the conqueror of Babylon is contradicted by the book of Isaiah in chapters 44, verse 38 and chapter 45 verse 1 which point to Cyrus as "...my shepherd" and "...to his anointed, Cyrus,..."

The errors and contradictions pile up, and this is important for considering whether or not this book is factual, or even vaguely inspired by any god.

After chapter 6 which repeats Darius, and then tells how Daniel was thrown into the lion's den and came out alive, chapter 7 reverts again to the "...first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon...", and visions during Belshazzar's third year in chapter 8.

In chapter 9, it's back to Darius, then in chapter 10 it is "...the third year of Cyrus and another vision, then back to Darius in chapter 11.

The sequencing is maddeningly confusing and without rationale again indicating several sloppy writers or editors.

As I said, all of these errors, large and small, but mostly large, are important for in the final chapter, 12. we have in verses 1 and 2 the basis for the resurrection and rapture. These verses are:

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Those two verses in the final chapter amidst all of the errors mentioned in earlier chapters, and some not mentioned, are what the Pharisees of the New Testament and Jesus based their claim for an afterlife and the rapture.