Jesus did not die on the Cross

That's better, syed.

I am not biologist or forensic expert, so I can't really comment on about dead don't bleed, but what shad had stated in post 75, about gravity, make sense.

But I will comment about your "healing herbs" and john 19:39, but more about myrrh, not aloe, because I don't much about aloe as I do about myrrh.

syed ahmad said:

He was given healing herbs/ointments when taken down from the cross.

Click to expand...

syed ahmad said:

In the same chapter, in verse 39 he was wrapped with healing ointments. Jews nor anyone wrap dead bodies with expensive healing ointments.

Click to expand...

Now let me get one thing straight, I don't have any expertise in area of medicine or in funerary practice, but during my research stage on Egyptian myths (when i was planning to do website on Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths about 7 years ago), I had read (English) translations of Egyptian literature, like the Pyramid Text, the Coffin Text and the Book of the Dead. All of these are funerary texts, which delved not only mythology, but the ritual of preparation for death, and the hope of gaining entry into the afterlife.

And because of these texts, I took interest in how the Egyptian pyramids, tombs and funerary temples were built, and this led me to investigate how to prepare the dead for funeral and burial, including mummies.

Now I understand what you are saying about herb can be used for medicinal purpose. And myrrh being mentioned In John 19:39 can be used as medicine, so what you said could be true.

Please note my last sentence is "could be true". Yes, myrrh could be use as medicine, but it has several other uses, and that I would guess, including the aloes. It could be used as perfume and incense. The sweet aroma smell of myrrh, and I am guessing, aloes too, can be used in applying to the body, before wrapping the body.

One of the plants used for mummies, come from the myrrh. The resin oil from myrrh, have also being used in embalming.

So I don't think it is strange that they would use myrrh (and even aloes) on dead body.

If Jesus was dead, then using myrrh and aloes, make a lot of sense, don't you think.

Now, the gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel (of the 4) and definitely older than that of John's. Mark 15:46 also mentioned Jesus being wrapped in linen cloth when his body, but make no mention of spices, myrrh or aloe.

But before this verse (15:46), when Joseph asked Pilate if he could ask take Jesus down for burial, he didn't simple give a live body to Joseph. He asked a centurion if Jesus was dead, and released the body when the centurion said yes.

Mark 15:43-45 said:

43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.

Click to expand...

A centurion was a leader of CENTURY, a company of about 80 legionaries (the strength varies, depending on casualties), and it is equivalent to staff sergeant. Centurions fought in the front line, and have years of experiences. And a centurion would know if a person is alive or dead.

Do you seriously think, a centurion is stupid, that he couldn't distinguish a live person from a dead one?

Now it is great that you provided sources in which can discuss things, but since there are 3 other gospels about Jesus crucifixion, I think it is better to read all 4 sources instead of relying on one gospel.

I know that you relied on one gospel to prove your points, but it is not good scholarship if you don't compare them to others, and I think john is the least reliable of the 4 gospels.

I would write more but it is now 2:20 in the morning, and I am tired, so I would bid you good night. :sleep:

Syed Ahmad said:

Gnostic

John 19:34 states that Jesus was pierced in the side and bled. Dead bodies don't bleed, in particular blood does not gush out.

In the same chapter, in verse 39 he was wrapped with healing ointments. Jews nor anyone wrap dead bodies with expensive healing ointments.

The part where he went into hiding... Well the omission of him showing himself to the world proves that he went into hiding, and also disguised himself as a gardener (John 20:15) hints that he did not die on the cross.

These are of course my interpretations, and you're free to present better ones, this is where the debate begins...

Thanks

Syed

Click to expand...

No where does it say it gushed out. Not one interpretation use those words. Strawman. If you have ever worked in a slaughterhouse dead animals can still bleed provided butchering is done is a short time frame between the two. Also you have to consider the symbolic meaning of water and blood.

In 19:39 it does say healing ointments. Every interpretation says myrrh and aloes. Myrrh is a spice which does have medical uses. However it also has a long history in burial practices. Practices which I have referenced.

It could prove he ascended to Heaven as per Christian beliefs. A follower could have taken his body for burial in another place. Grave robbers could have taken his corpse given the amount of spices and herb present. The absence of his body no more suggests your idea than another. Just as the absences of King Arthur's body does not prove he is in Avalon.

Jesus never died on a cross.The word cross is a mistranslation.The actual word used in the holy scriptures was stauros.It means an upright stake,pale or pole.Another word was also used.This word is Xylon.Both of these words never mean two pieces of wood or timber.Its always one single piece of wood.The word cross was used by Latin translators.The New Testament was not written in Latin.
The NT was written in all Koine Greek.Stauros and Xylon are both Greek words.

If we read Galatians 3:13 it says this,Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

This is actually a quote from Deuteronomy 21:23."you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance."

So we can see clearly from these scriptures that it was definitely not a cross Jesus was killed on.

Even in bibles like the Catholic Douay Rheims version, and the KJV bible, it is rendered as tree.It never says cross.They used tree in these versions because when they translated it,they knew it was not a cross because of what Peter wrote.

As recorded at Acts 5:30, the apostle Peter used the word xy′lon, meaning “tree,” as a synonym for stau·ros′, denoting, not a two-beamed cross, but an ordinary piece of upright timber or tree. It was not until about 300 years after Jesus’ death that some professed Christians promoted the idea that Jesus was put to death on a two-beamed cross. However, this view was based on tradition and a misuse of the Greek word stau·ros′. It is noteworthy that some ancient drawings depicting Roman executions feature a single wooden pole or tree.

Bible Student said:

Jesus never died on a cross..

Click to expand...

Only if one does sloppy research .

It was not until about 300 years after Jesus’ death that some professed Christians promoted the idea that Jesus was put to death on a two-beamed cross.

Click to expand...

Severe ignorance of the topic you debate.


The T shape was very early and what most historians follow today.

In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says:[13]


The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, "Apologia," i. 55-60; "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona," iii.; Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21–22; Lactantius, "Divinæ Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross

0ne-answer said:

It all began with Jesus peace be upon him said that he came to fulfill the law.

According to the law, everything that is crucified would be cursed.

Deuteronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is key here, which you lack. First off crucifixion was a Roman practice not a Judaism practice. Fallacy of equivocation. In Duet 21:22 you can clearly see that this is about capital punishment. There is also the issue of the Pharisees. Since Jesus is a prophet in Islam he has authority greater than the Priesthood. Thus the priests have no authority to put him on trial. Also by opposing a prophet they are opposing God's will which further shows they have no authority what so ever. Further more the trial of Jesus was done in the Roman system not the Mosanic system. The Mosanic system had no authority, all rest directly with Roman and it's representatives. Hence why after a mock trial the priests went to Pilate rather than executing Jesus themselves. They were subjects of Rome rather than representives of Judaism. As far as history is concerned they were Roman collaborators. They were puppets, useful but still puppets. The Israelite were given no message about following Roman law as they had with Babylon. Now by moving the trial to a foreign court which is part of a foreign religion, government and religion were the same in Rome. The priests violated a commandment by placing a foreign religion backed by foreign Gods ahead of that of God and God's laws. Since the trail followed no system within Judaism the curse is not applied to Jesus.

If a Muslim accuses you of blasphemy and apostasy yet goes to a court system in the UK it can not be called sharia law nor the judgement.

The disciples has heard that Jesus peace be upon him was crucified and were not eyewitness

Click to expand...

John 19:26-27 One was there as well as various women and other people depending on the text.

Acts 1:3 o whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God

Click to expand...

Yes it is called the resurrection, a core concept of Christianity

outhouse said:

Only if one does sloppy research .




Severe ignorance of the topic you debate.


The T shape was very early and what most historians follow today.

In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says:[13]


The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, "Apologia," i. 55-60; "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona," iii.; Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21–22; Lactantius, "Divinæ Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross

Click to expand...

You are absolutely incorrect.First of all, the cross has nothing at all to do with Christianity.
It derived from the pagan Egyptians.It was the Egyptians who were using the symbol of the cross first.The symbol is the actual Hieroglyphic sign of life.The Ankh cross was being used by the 18th Dynasty 1500 years before Christ ever walked the face of the earth.It is a pagan symbol and Christianity has been bombarded with false idols and pagan symbols.Thats why there is true Christianity,and then theres counterfeit Christianity.

Bible Student said:

You are absolutely incorrect.

Click to expand...

yet you cannot refute a single word.


I have all historians behind me, you not at all.

First of all, the cross has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Click to expand...

Did I make that claim? Or are you trying to argue with an encyclopedia?

It derived from the pagan Egyptians.It was the Egyptians who were using the symbol of the cross first.The symbol is the actual Hieroglyphic sign of life.The Ankh cross was being used by the 18th Dynasty 1500 years before Christ ever walked the face of the earth.It is a pagan symbol and Christianity has been bombarded with false idols and pagan symbols.Thats why there is true Christianity,and then theres counterfeit Christianity.

Click to expand...

It was in use before this, more then likely.


And you have evidence there is a connection to Egypt mythology?




written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.

So we know in the second century the cross was already taking shape.


We also have nails from the first century to nail feet to crosses or T's as described. So we also have archeology backing the T shape.


We also have evidence they ran poles through the middle of people, trees, every kind of torture you can think of.

But a group of people ended up thinking he was on a T or cross very early on. he was crucified to be made an example.

outhouse said:

yet you cannot refute a single word.


I have all historians behind me, you not at all.



Did I make that claim? Or are you trying to argue with an encyclopedia?




It was in use before this, more then likely.


And you have evidence there is a connection to Egypt mythology?




written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.

So we know in the second century the cross was already taking shape.


We also have nails from the first century to nail feet to crosses or T's as described. So we also have archeology backing the T shape.


We also have evidence they ran poles through the middle of people, trees, every kind of torture you can think of.

But a group of people ended up thinking he was on a T or cross very early on. he was crucified to be made an example.

Click to expand...

Did I say you made that claim? No,I did not.It was a statement I made,not an accusation.
If you took it that way, well I'm sorry you feel that way.

You have false claims behind you that match your false story.

When confronted with actual facts and truth theres nothing you can do but try to find something else to try to prove it wrong.You are incorrect and have been proven wrong.

"It was in use before this, more then likely." No.It was in use before this.
Do some thorough research..............

Gnostic

Thanks for your comments. With regards to the blood and water, I'll reply to Shad about the gravity point.

I completely agree that myrrh and aloe were used in burial practices, but would like to make the point that I am not aware of any practice where these two herbs, both renown for their healing properties were applied to dead bodies, and in particular such a huge amount.

These spices were used for scent a lot, where they were burnt, and in some other cases spices/oils were applied to the body in order to wash it, as mentioned in the Tamara and earlier Jewish traditions: Shab 23:5 indicates that the corpse was anointed and washed, i.e. it was first smeared with oil to remove the dirt and then washed to cleanse it of the oil.

Jesus’ body was anointed with the spices, but was not washed, so it cannot be for this reason. Furthermore, it would have been a complete waste of money and effort to wash a body with myrrh and aloe, both of which were incredibly expensive; more expensive than gold.

A further point is that, later in the gospels it is recorded that some women came to the tomb days later to 'anoint Jesus with spices'. According to Mark (15:46), Joseph took the body of Jesus and wrapped him in linen cloths. But he would not have done so if he had not already cleaned the body; otherwise the sweat and blood of the body would have stuck to the cloth. Then leaving the body for a day and a half in such a state would have made it almost impossible to access it to clean; since it would have required peeling off the sheets, which would probably have peeled off parts of the skin as well. No Jew would therefore wrap a body in linen cloths without first cleaning it. However, neither Mark nor the other gospels mention anyone washing the body of Jesus before wrapping it, which would have been the standard procedure for shrouding a dead body.

This all points to the intention of the application of the healing herbs for curing him.

Do you seriously think, a centurion is stupid, that he couldn't distinguish a live person from a dead one?

Click to expand...

Ahhh interesting point, but what about modern doctors? There have been many cases in the past few decades where doctors have pronounced people dead, only to find them waking up later, sometimes in funerals! So if modern doctors can mistake people, I'm sure a soldier; one training in killing people could easily mistake one for dead.



Shad

You're right, however the Greek points to the blood coming out immediately, in a rush you can say. And no I don't work in a slaughter house, but have seen dead animals being chopped up, plus have spoken to many doctors who point to the fact that blood coming out immediately, or quickly will only happen with an active heart.

With regard to the ointments, please see my comments above to Gnostic. You have yet to provide me with a reference or example of Jews applying Myrrh and aloe to dead bodies. Can you please? If it was a common practice.

his body was absent from the grave, but it wasn't totally absent from everywhere else. He appears numerous times afterwards, in disguise often. Why not show himself to the world and present the miracle? Couldn't the simplest reason be that he was hiding; had he shown himself, the Romans would simply have put him back on the cross.


Thanks

Syed

Syed Ahmad said:

Gnostic
Shad

You're right, however the Greek points to the blood coming out immediately, in a rush you can say. And no I don't work in a slaughter house, but have seen dead animals being chopped up, plus have spoken to many doctors who point to the fact that blood coming out immediately, or quickly will only happen with an active heart.

Click to expand...

First off blood and water builds up in the lungs in the case of heart failure. If a wound includes the lungs this fluid would be released. For that matter than large blood veins or body cavities which contain fluid would release this fluid. The fact is no one knows when Jesus died and when he was stabbed. He could of been dead for hours, minutes or seconds. Without this information we can only speculate.

I have worked in a slaughter house since I was a teenager, it was my summer job for years. My family and that of my extended family owns beef cattle and does their own slaughtering and butchersing. After we kill the cattle we slice the throat to drain the blood, which comes out much faster than one would expect to see. We use gravity rather than suction as it works.

With regard to the ointments, please see my comments above to Gnostic. You have yet to provide me with a reference or example of Jews applying Myrrh and aloe to dead bodies. Can you please? If it was a common practice.

Click to expand...

I did with the references from a book and a number of verses. Read the comment again

his body was absent from the grave, but it wasn't totally absent from everywhere else. He appears numerous times afterwards, in disguise often. Why not show himself to the world and present the miracle? Couldn't the simplest reason be that he was hiding; had he shown himself, the Romans would simply have put him back on the cross.

Click to expand...

Yes this could suggestion Christian resurrection, grave robbers, movement of the body by others, etc. It no more suggesting your view than it does any of the above views. You are selecting one view as it confirms your bias, aka confirmation bias.

Pilate according to mainstream Christian sources washed his hands of the event. Joseph asked Pilate for permission to remove the body for burial. Him along with Nicodemus took Jesus down from the cross.

Jesus could have shown the world a miracle before his death. God could show the world a miracle right now to 100% of the population. Why does God not do this? Nonsensical questions result in nonsensical answers...

You are presenting claims not evidence. You are confusing the two concepts.




Syed[/quote]

Bible Student said:

Did I say you made that claim? No,I did not.It was a statement I made,not an accusation.
If you took it that way, well I'm sorry you feel that way.

You have false claims behind you that match your false story.

When confronted with actual facts and truth theres nothing you can do but try to find something else to try to prove it wrong.You are incorrect and have been proven wrong.

"It was in use before this, more then likely." No.It was in use before this.
Do some thorough research..............

Click to expand...

written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.


You stated after 300, your factually in error.

outhouse said:

written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.


You stated after 300, your factually in error.

Click to expand...

I stated,It was not until about 300 years after Jesus’ death that some professed Christians promoted the idea that Jesus was put to death on a two-beamed cross.

What does that have to do with, "written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross." ?

Nothing at all.......

In your research it said these people were doing this to ward of demons." and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons

True Christians did not do this.Try to find one single passage in the NT where Jesus' disciples did this when they were exercising demons.You will never find such a passage.This was done by way of Gods holy sprit,not by putting symbols or marks on ones head.Thats nonsense.

Thats why I mentioned to you that there is true Christianity and then theres counterfeit Christianity.



These techniques that these so called Christians were doing were actually pagan practices.These practices have no place in true Christianity.


You need to do some thorough studying..............

Bible Student said:

Thats why I mentioned to you that there is true Christianity and then theres counterfeit Christianity.

Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what is true or not.


You have not showed a bit of historical knowledge in context, only bias.



Why do most educated people follow the T shape?

However, early Christians writers who speak of the shape of the particular gibbet on which Jesus died invariably describe it as having a cross-beam. For instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135,[131] and may have been of the 1st century AD,[132] the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened it to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300),[133] and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11–12.[134] Justin Martyr (100–165) explicitly says the cross of Christ was of two-beam shape: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."[135] Irenaeus, who died around the end of the 2nd century, speaks of the cross as having "five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails."[136] For other witnesses to how early Christians envisaged the shape of the gibbet used for Jesus, see Dispute about Jesus' execution method.

outhouse said:

You don't have a clue what is true or not.


You have not showed a bit of historical knowledge in context, only bias.



Why do most educated people follow the T shape?

Click to expand...

Well, you are an atheist, so, I do not expect for you to believe anything that has to do with God anyway.Anything I say will only be welcomed with more disrespectful talk and nonsense.
It would be best for you to just go about your business and I as well.This discussion will only go nowhere and would be a waste of both of our time.I no longer wish to speak to you.You have yourself a nice day

Time is a running....I have to go clean and get my yard ready for my big party.I have to buy the tequila for the margaritas,buy some beer.Get some chicken and ribs.Fresh corn on the cob etc..



Ps.Do not attempt to try to pull me into any more conversations.We have nothing else to say to each other.


Pss.Knowing your type,Im sure you will probably try to have the last word, and make some comments.Knock yourself out brother.

Bible Student said:

you will probably try to have the last word, and make some comments.Knock yourself out brother.

Click to expand...

Yes I know you hate knowledge and education in favor of bias.


I post credible links by scholars.

You post biased opinion showing your desperation in light of evidence you cannot refute, now running from a debate.

Lol...................... What did I say.I called it.Lol....:clap

Shad said:

Reading comprehension is key here, which you lack. First off crucifixion was a Roman practice not a Judaism practice. Fallacy of equivocation. In Duet 21:22 you can clearly see that this is about capital punishment. There is also the issue of the Pharisees. Since Jesus is a prophet in Islam he has authority greater than the Priesthood. Thus the priests have no authority to put him on trial. Also by opposing a prophet they are opposing God's will which further shows they have no authority what so ever. Further more the trial of Jesus was done in the Roman system not the Mosanic system. The Mosanic system had no authority, all rest directly with Roman and it's representatives. Hence why after a mock trial the priests went to Pilate rather than executing Jesus themselves. They were subjects of Rome rather than representives of Judaism. As far as history is concerned they were Roman collaborators. They were puppets, useful but still puppets. The Israelite were given no message about following Roman law as they had with Babylon. Now by moving the trial to a foreign court which is part of a foreign religion, government and religion were the same in Rome. The priests violated a commandment by placing a foreign religion backed by foreign Gods ahead of that of God and God's laws. Since the trail followed no system within Judaism the curse is not applied to Jesus.

If a Muslim accuses you of blasphemy and apostasy yet goes to a court system in the UK it can not be called sharia law nor the judgement.




John 19:26-27 One was there as well as various women and other people depending on the text.


Yes it is called the resurrection, a core concept of Christianity

Click to expand...

I appreciate your input but I disagree here. Your example " If a Muslim accuses you of blasphemy and apostasy yet goes to a court system in the UK it can not be called sharia law nor the judgement" isn't how things go but let us agree it is that way for the sake of argument. Here the case is different.

Jesus peace be upon him said that he didn't come to destroy the law, he came to fulfill it. This is key here. According to this law, as I showed, anyone who is hung on the tree is cursed and I mentioned the reference. This means anywhere, if they were able to crucify Jesus peace be upon him, he wouldn't be a prophet, or it will disprove who he was or what he said he was even if they crucified him on the moon. The law of the prophets goes everywhere and not only in a certain place.


We muslims believe that Jesus peace be upon him wasn't crucified nor dead, but Allah raised him, and he will be back to kill the false messiah. So yes Jesus peace be upon him will be back, but it didn't go that he was crucified and he was brought back.

I hope you guys search more about Jesus peace be upon him in Islam and see what the Quraan, the last revelation has to say.

There are many things worth reading, or even watching if you want. I would strongly recommend watching videos to Joshua Evans and Youssef estes on these subjects.

0ne-answer said:

I hope you guys search more about Jesus peace be upon him in Islam and see what the Quraan, the last revelation has to say.

Click to expand...

Why?


Not one aspect is historical.

Not one credible scholar uses your religion for any aspect of Jesus real life.

Threads like this are typical of muslims trying to take control over all current religions forcing their belief on everyone else.


I think its pathetic and rude.