Did Jesus Christ Survive The Crucifixion And Flee To Kashmir, Asia?

image

As controversial as it may be, an explosive documentary from the BBC details how historical evidence points to the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ, as traditionally believed, is nothing but a lie.

Continue reading if you choose to take the red pill.

Most think that people died by the inflicted wounds of crucifixion, but they almost never did. Rather, they died from suffocation as the chest compresses when the arms are tied down. Death could take as long as 3 days. All biblical accounts of the crucifixion say Christ died within about 6-9 hours.

So if he didn’t die, what happened? Jesus may have appeared to be dead, but was he clinically dead? Healing herbs were brought in his tomb instead of embalming. If he was “miraculously” resuscitated, could that have been explained as “resurrected” given the lack of modern medical knowledge 2000 years ago? And if he didn’t die, where did he go?

The most logical scenario meant Christ would’ve fled all Roman territories, leaving Asia as the only real destination. In 1887, Russian scholar Nicolai Notovich discovered evidence in Kashmir, Asia, that a prophet named “Issa” from Jerusalem continued his ministry and died there. This would explain why historical accounts of Christ in Palestine during His adolescence are strangely nonexistent (when he was likely in India studying Buddhism).

So what motive did the Romans have for manufacturing the Christ legend? Plenty. If word got out that Jesus not only survived his crucifixion but also managed to successfully escape, it would’ve been a major political embarrassment for the Roman Empire. It also would’ve potentially risked a revolution. So what to do? How could the Romans explain the disappearance of Christ’s body while also maintaining the balance of power? It was quite genius really.

The empire chose to leave people to their legends for several decades. Scriptures began circulating that were written anonymously but later attributed to Christ’s followers. Ultimately a new generation that had no personal connection to Christ was told to believe in stories about the man written by people who never met him nor witnessed the events themselves.

One is the fundamental difference in the message of Christ and his legend is the overall message. The real man told his followers that God resided within. That individuals are fractals of the divine spiritual consciousness and that humanity collectively could determine its own destiny. The Christ legend teaches the opposite: that God is EXTERNAL and that the dark “prophecies” of judgment would come to pass regardless of man’s individual and collective action.

Another is the ironic parallels between Christian and Satanic rituals; ritualistic blood sacrifice, cannibalism, blood drinking, etc.

We also have the false images of Christ. We are to believe that a man born in the Middle East was white when historical accounts speak of a dark skinned man. Evidence suggests that the pale faced depictions of Christ are actually images of Cesar Borgia…Basically, Christians have been worshipping a false idol.

Watch the full BBC Documentary Here and decide for yourself. Challenge you to research the evidence presented and to arrive at your own conclusions.