Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

adrian009 said:

In contrast to the Synoptics there are significant omissions such as the olivet discourse. There is the introduction of much new material such as the logos. The emphasis appears to contrast Christian theology with Judaism by emphasising a personal relationship with Christ. Most Christians and theologians have no problem whatsoever with the Gospels as they stand. I don’t either so stand alongside my Christian brothers and sisters.

In regards the OP the Gospel of John emphasises the last week of Jesus’s life along with the crucifixion and resurrection. 1/3 of the material is devoted to this part of Jesus’s life. It is no coincidence that the crucifixion and resurrection take centre stage and are mentioned in all four Gospels.

Click to expand...

John introduced the logos as you say. How come Mark wasn't aware of that if they were both inspired? Was it not that important at that time that the revelation waited 40 years and picked that ideal time? Did the writers of the gospels tell you this or are you making assumptions?

The discussion is not about people reading the book and having problems or not and its not about who you stand with. Thats all good and fine. This is about going to the truth.

firedragon said:

John introduced the logos as you say. How come Mark wasn't aware of that if they were both inspired? Was it not that important at that time that the revelation waited 40 years and picked that ideal time? Did the writers of the gospels tell you this or are you making assumptions?

The discussion is not about people reading the book and having problems or not and its not about who you stand with. Thats all good and fine. This is about going to the truth.

Click to expand...

The title Logos is about the Divinity of Christ and His role as a Mediator between man and God. It is simply expressed more explicitly whereas Mark is implicit. For example In Mark 14, Jesus stands accused at His trial before the High Priest. “Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62).

In Mark 14 Jesus is likely referring to the book of Daniel that states, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14). In this reference to Daniel's vision, Jesus is identifying Himself as the ‘Son of Man’.

The Son of man’ a person who was given “dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him.” The High Priest, who immediately recognised Jesus’ claim to divinity, tore his robe and declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:63-64).

The title "Son of Man" features many times throughout all four Gospels. It is in part a Messianic title (along with Son of David) and relates to the Divinity of Christ (along with the Son of God title).

The phrase "Son of Man" is used of Jesus only a few times outside of the Gospels themselves (Acts of the apostles 7:56; Revelation 1:13; 14:14). Given its scarce usage by the early apostolic church, it is unlikely this title would have been read back into the lips of Jesus if, in fact, He had not used this particular self-designation. In using this title established that Jesus considered Himself to have everlasting power and a unique authority beyond that of a mere human being.

Sometimes, it was Jesus’ actions that revealed His identity. Jesus’ healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 was done to demonstrate His authority and ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:3-12).

So the Logos is simply expressed differently in the Gospels of John and Mark. The images within both books compliment and contrast each other to enable a better understanding.

firedragon said:

So you say that we dont know who wrote the gospels, all written decades after Jesus passed away, some even go to the length to say that "they inherited knowledge of the happenings from others and investigated by themselves", yet they are all inspired divinely, guided divinely, and no corruption has entered them?

Click to expand...

Why would God leave the Christian community deprived of the Revelation of Christ through a corrupted and deficient book? He sent His only begotten Son to die as an atonement for our sins. There would be no Mercy and Power from God if His Holy Book was not protected and did not communicate to the people all God wished through Christ. The Christian Church have flourished through the Revelation of Christ as recorded in the New Testament just as the Muslims have been empowered through the Holy Quran. Therefore the Gospels are assumed to be Divinely inspired and freed from corruption. It is for the cynics and critics to prove and establish corruption.

adrian009 said:

Why would God leave the Christian community deprived of the Revelation of Christ through a corrupted and deficient book? He sent His only begotten Son to die as an atonement for our sins. There would be no Mercy and Power from God if His Holy Book was not protected and did not communicate to the people all God wished through Christ. The Christian Church have flourished through the Revelation of Christ as recorded in the New Testament just as the Muslims have been empowered through the Holy Quran. Therefore the Gospels are assumed to be Divinely inspired and freed from corruption. It is for the cynics and critics to prove and establish corruption.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by saying "corruption"? Specifically.

firedragon said:

What do you mean by saying "corruption"? Specifically.

Click to expand...

the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.

corruption definition - Google Search

adrian009 said:

the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.

corruption definition - Google Search

Click to expand...

But that didnt come into the picture. And I didnt ask for a dictionary definition. I asked for your specific definition on the topic. Why are you bringing up corruption and what is it exactly you mean? Do you understand the question?

I speak English. If I use a word assume the common use of the word. In regards the Gospels the meaning of the word corruption should be clear. It is a word often used by Muslims to describe the Sacred Writings of both the Jewish and Christian religions.

Islamic view of the Bible - Wikipedia

adrian009 said:

I speak English. If I use a word assume the common use of the word. In regards the Gospels the meaning of the word corruption should be clear. It is a word often used by Muslims to describe the Sacred Writings of both the Jewish and Christian religions.

Islamic view of the Bible - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Yes. It is often used. Bible is corrupted is always used. Though are targeting muslims because I am is polarisation. And not only muslims but all kinds of people use it. Including Christians. But it's not relevant here because I didnt use it. It's a strawman fallacy.

You keep making assumptions. That's not what I was asking. Dont prototype anything simply based on where its coming from. Doing that is the genetic fallacy.

I did not discuss about the son of man, jesus and his sonship with god, his divinity etc etc which are all the things you are talking about here. It's all irrelevant.

Peace.

firedragon said:

Yes. It is often used. Bible is corrupted is always used. Though are targeting muslims because I am is polarisation. And not only muslims but all kinds of people use it. Including Christians. But it's not relevant here because I didnt use it. It's a strawman fallacy.

You keep making assumptions. That's not what I was asking. Dont prototype anything simply based on where its coming from. Doing that is the genetic fallacy.

I did not discuss about the son of man, jesus and his sonship with god, his divinity etc etc which are all the things you are talking about here. It's all irrelevant.

Peace.

Click to expand...

You asked about where the logos can be found in Mark. I showed you. Simple as that. The Bible is clearly not your forte.

adrian009 said:

You asked about where the logos can be found in Mark. I showed you. Simple as that. The Bible is clearly not your forte.

Click to expand...

No. I didn't ask where logos can be found in mark.

And thanks for your personal comments. Very gracious of you. Very good. Must be very satisfying.

firedragon said:

Alright. How do you assess that John built on the Synoptic gospels? Whats the basis? If its an evolving theology how is that John as you said complements Mark?

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

The Gospels stand together as Divinely inspired and guided works and take centre stage in the New Testament. There is no corruption. There is no contradiction that cannot be resolved.

Click to expand...

firedragon said:

John introduced the logos as you say. How come Mark wasn't aware of that if they were both inspired? Was it not that important at that time that the revelation waited 40 years and picked that ideal time?

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

The title Logos is about the Divinity of Christ and His role as a Mediator between man and God. It is simply expressed more explicitly whereas Mark is implicit.

Click to expand...

firedragon said:

I did not discuss about the son of man, jesus and his sonship with god, his divinity etc etc which are all the things you are talking about here. It's all irrelevant.

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

You asked about where the logos can be found in Mark. I showed you. Simple as that. The Bible is clearly not your forte.

Click to expand...

firedragon said:

No. I didn't ask where logos can be found in mark.

Click to expand...

Great work. But I didn't ask "where" in mark I can find logos. Your explanations all Strawman, and you polarised all muslims as claiming corruption of the Bible and personalised that to me eternally. Another Strawman argument.

).

firedragon said:

Great work. But I didn't ask "where" in mark I can find logos. Your explanations all Strawman, and you polarised all muslims as claiming corruption of the Bible and personalised that to me eternally. Another Strawman argument.

).

Click to expand...

I was happy to have a friendly conversation about the connections between the Gospels. If you don’t wish to, that’s fine.

If you go back and read my post #307 I never said all Muslims see the Bible as corrupt and I’ve never made an assumption about your view of the Bible. I don’t know what you think. Rather than react in the manner you have, see it as an opportunity to explain how you see it.

I brought you to this thread as its an opportunity for just the two us to talk away from the distractions.This thread had been inactive for a while and although a few people will inevitably drop by its free from the distractions of the ‘Why, Baha’i’ thread you started. So we’re not playing to an audience. I’ve no interest to win debates anyhow.

I appreciate you Islamaphobia thread may have you feeling a little defensive. I’m sorry to see that and perhaps I was less than helpful. Where that thread is heading now is not for me. Looks like more heat than light. How’s it for you?

adrian009 said:

I was happy to have a friendly conversation about the connections between the Gospels. If you don’t wish to, that’s fine.

Click to expand...

I was trying to brother until you started polarising me as a Muslim and by default I have a particular interest of claiming this "corruption". I don't like that kind of polarisation or genetic fallacies. Thats my nature. No one should be polarised due to their faith or non-faith. Everyone should be assessed based one the merits of what they are saying and heard with an open mind rather than thinking that there is something sinister in the back of their minds.

When I asked you why you are repeatedly bringing this "corruption" matter into this conversation when I haven't mentioned it your response was that"Muslims use it". How in the world would that matter to me? Earlier I explained in detail this particular thing about corruption matter which an entirely different discussion and would need New Testament study like form criticism, textual criticism. Thats an entirely different discussion.

I did not claim gospel writers corrupted anything! I was getting your view on the gospels and the evolution of the Christian theology evident to me and scholars in general in the four gospels ranging from Mark to John. I did not pose a single argument against the Christian theology, validity of the trinity, Jesus's divinity, his gegennosai, nor did I claim that they are corrupted by whoever or whatever. Not here.

Peace.

firedragon said:

I was trying to brother until you started polarising me as a Muslim and by default I have a particular interest of claiming this "corruption". I don't like that kind of polarisation or genetic fallacies. Thats my nature. No one should be polarised due to their faith or non-faith. Everyone should be assessed based one the merits of what they are saying and heard with an open mind rather than thinking that there is something sinister in the back of their minds.

When I asked you why you are repeatedly bringing this "corruption" matter into this conversation when I haven't mentioned it your response was that"Muslims use it". How in the world would that matter to me? Earlier I explained in detail this particular thing about corruption matter which an entirely different discussion and would need New Testament study like form criticism, textual criticism. Thats an entirely different discussion.

I did not claim gospel writers corrupted anything! I was getting your view on the gospels and the evolution of the Christian theology evident to me and scholars in general in the four gospels ranging from Mark to John. I did not pose a single argument against the Christian theology, validity of the trinity, Jesus's divinity, his gegennosai, nor did I claim that they are corrupted by whoever or whatever. Not here.

Peace.

Click to expand...

I realise your views are not typical for Muslims as you’ve already indicated you accept Christ was crucified. I don’t know how you see the Gospels. I’m curious but if you don’t want to elaborate that’s fine. I am open about what I believe and don’t. I’m openly a Baha’i and am comfortable in my own skin. If I contrast my beliefs with those held by those of other faiths including the majority of Muslims, what’s the harm? I have talked to a few Muslims on this forum about the Bible. It doesn’t bother me what Muslims believe about the Gospels. I just want to understand it better. I don’t see why there needs to be such sensitivity and defensiveness. We’re just sharing our thoughts and beliefs. We’ll have quite a few things in common and the rest we can agree to disagree.

I pick up the vibe that you’re not in agreement with my faith from the ‘why, Baha’i’ thread. Once again, I don’t really care. I’ve talked to Muslims that have been friendly and reasonable, others not so. I’ve had a couple who have clearly viewed my faith with disdain.

If you want to discuss the OP and Christian, Muslim and Baha’i views of the Gospels I’m good to go. If not, no problem. There’s plenty of other people we can both talk to. Have a great life.

adrian009 said:

I realise your views are not typical for Muslims as you’ve already indicated you accept Christ was crucified. I don’t know how you see the Gospels. I’m curious but if you don’t want to elaborate that’s fine. I am open about what I believe and don’t. I’m openly a Baha’i and am comfortable in my own skin. If I contrast my beliefs with those held by those of other faiths including the majority of Muslims, what’s the harm? I have talked to a few Muslims on this forum about the Bible. It doesn’t bother me what Muslims believe about the Gospels. I just want to understand it better. I don’t see why there needs to be such sensitivity and defensiveness. We’re just sharing our thoughts and beliefs. We’ll have quite a few things in common and the rest we can agree to disagree.

I pick up the vibe that you’re not in agreement with my faith from the ‘why, Baha’i’ thread. Once again, I don’t really care. I’ve talked to Muslims that have been friendly and reasonable, others not so. I’ve had a couple who have clearly viewed my faith with disdain.

If you want to discuss the OP and Christian, Muslim and Baha’i views of the Gospels I’m good to go. If not, no problem. There’s plenty of other people we can both talk to. Have a great life.

Click to expand...

Brother. I honestly dont wish to discuss my views on the Gospels. My quest was to understand your views because of the evolution of Christology and the crucifixion narration through time/gospels.

adrian009 said:

you accept Christ was crucified.

Click to expand...

To clarify, in this matter I separate historical Jesus and Jesus of faith. The historical Jesus was definitely or most probably crucified by the romans for the crime of sedition along with others. Jesus of faith may have died prior to hanging on the cross, maybe they were completely mistaken and crucified another person and Jesus escaped their prosecution, maybe his life was terminated and they actually didnt kill him on the cross, there could be a lot of maybe's to think of.

firedragon said:

Brother. I honestly dont wish to discuss my views on the Gospels. My quest was to understand your views because of the evolution of Christology and the crucifixion narration through time/gospels.

Click to expand...

OK. You ask for my views which I share in good faith and you your responses were quite negative and dismissive. OTOH you wish not to share your own views.

firedragon said:

To clarify, in this matter I separate historical Jesus and Jesus of faith. The historical Jesus was definitely or most probably crucified by the romans for the crime of sedition along with others. Jesus of faith may have died prior to hanging on the cross, maybe they were completely mistaken and crucified another person and Jesus escaped their prosecution, maybe his life was terminated and they actually didnt kill him on the cross, there could be a lot of maybe's to think of.

Click to expand...

OK

adrian009 said:

OK. You ask for my views which I share in good faith and you your responses were quite negative and dismissive. OTOH you wish not to share your own views.

Click to expand...

Because the topic is different.

adrian009 said:

Christ’s body (symbolising the church) came to life after three days

Click to expand...

I know where Baha'is get that... it's from Abdul Baha. But, where in the NT does anything sound like the "body", meaning his followers, came to life 3 days after Jesus was killed?