• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus Christ actually die?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Please make up your mind.

And no, it is not a "historical fact". You will not find that in any histories.

Jesus Christ is a historical figure and Christianity has historical evidence. Historians All Agree Jesus Christ Is A Historical Figure | Reasons for Jesus

By James Bishop| Having studied both Theology and Religious Studies at undergraduate and post-graduate levels there is one thing, “datum,” or “common mind” that all scholars, regardless of their personal beliefs, will accept, and this is that Jesus Christ existed.

The purpose of this short entry is just to capture some of this evidence. It will also try to show that when the historical data is considered Christ is a fairly well attested figure of history.

Going on consensus that Christ was crucified around 30 AD it is impressive that by the end of the first century historians have four (partially) independent biographies in the form of the gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John). These biographies were circulating in different early Christian communities, and each, despite their theological nature (to greater and lesser degrees depending on the gospel in question), present themselves as texts bound in space and time. These texts speak of real people, places, locations, villages, towns, cities, and cultural-social customs. Many of these have been corroborated with hard evidence from archaeological finds, and therefore must be considered grounded within history.

Consensus holds that the earliest gospel, Mark, was penned around 70 AD, and that the latest, John, was penned around 90 AD. Matthew and Luke are probably around 80 to 85 AD. What this means is that the gospels are early texts mostly penned within a generation or two of Christ’s death. Many historians will agree that possessing sources dating from 40 – 60 years after the described purported events are early when compared with what they have for many other historical figures and events. New Testament historian and professor Michael Licona says that,

“A gap of sixty to seventy years between the writing and the events they purport to describe is quite early compared to what historians work with when it comes to other ancient biographies” (1).
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Bible does not fulfill historical standards, whereas theology is only restricted by ones imagination.

I take the Bible seriously because there is historical evidence that backs it up. When you read the Bible over and again you notice things that you didn't notice before. 3 Evidences That Confirm the Bible Is Not Made Up

The Bible Is Confirmed by Archaeology
Second, the Bible accurately reveals historical people, events, and places. Consider the following items described in our article, “Archaeological Finds.”

  • Discovered in Israel, the Tel Dan Stele has been dated to the ninth century BC and mentions the “House of David,” shattering the long-held view of many skeptics that David was a mythical person.
  • The Mesha Stele describes Moab’s subjection under Omri, the king of Israel. It also references the personal name of the God of the Bible (Yahweh), and very likely contains a reference to the “House of David” (this is debated due to an unreadable letter).
  • The Pilate stone provides archaeological evidence for the existence of the man who sentenced Jesus to death on the Cross. Skeptics frequently denied his existence until the discovery of this stone, which identifies Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea.1
Dr. Nelson Glueck was the president of Hebrew Union College and a highly respected archaeologist whose reliance upon the historical accuracy of Scripture led to the discovery of 1,500 ancient sites. Regarding the Bible and archaeology, he stated the following:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.2

The distinguished archaeologist Dr. William F. Albright also asserted the accuracy of the Bible’s history.

Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.3

Glueck and Albright focused their attention on the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament? Does it enjoy a similar level of confirmation? Actually, perhaps because it is more recent, the evidence consistent with the New Testament is more abundant. Consider the following details in just a single chapter of the Bible that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists:

  • The proper location (Amphipolis and Apollonia) of where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (Acts 17:1)
  • The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)
  • The proper title, “politarchs,” used of the magistrates there (Acts 17:6)
  • The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens with favoring east winds of summer sailing (Acts 17:14)
  • The abundant presence of images in Athens (Acts 17:16)
  • The reference to a synagogue in Athens (Acts 17:17)
  • The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (Acts 17:17)
  • The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a spermologos(Acts 17:18), as well as the court (areios pagos)
  • The proper characterization of the Athenian character (Acts 17:21)
  • An altar to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23)
  • The proper reaction of Greek philosophers who denied bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32)
  • Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)4
Remember, all of these accurate details are found in just one chapter. This does not prove every word of Scripture is true, but it reveals that the writer (Luke) had intimate knowledge of the people, customs, and places he wrote about. Also, we have no record of any ancient writer denying the historicity of the people and places described in Scripture, but we do have a number of first- and second-century sources from outside the Bible confirming the existence of Jesus.

Many more archaeologists could be cited who verify the accuracy of the biblical text. Of course we’ll never find archaeological or paleographic evidence to confirm every person, event, or place described in the Bible. For example, historical research can provide corroborating evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus mentions these details in Annals), but scientific disciplines cannot confirm that His death on the Cross satisfied God’s wrath against sin. However, the abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”5

The abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”
Compare the Bible’s accuracy with the miserable archaeological record of the Mormon religion. The Mormon “holy books” teach that Native Americans are really Jews who fled Jerusalem, but DNA studies have falsified this claim. Furthermore, despite millions of dollars spent on excavations in the Americas, archaeologists have not uncovered a shred of evidence to support Mormon claims, and the early Americans did not wield scimitars or ride horses and elephants.6

Scientists from every discipline could be quoted whose work in their respective fields have either persuaded or further convinced them that the Bible is true. But we should not rely primarily on the conclusions of learned men and women of science. While their statements are helpful, we must recognize that they can err and change their minds. So is there anything we can look at to demonstrate the Bible was not just an invention of man? Indeed there is.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Right! Which is why we are not “born into sin.” We take on sin.

Because Adam had dominion over all his creation, he passed down spiritual death to his descendants. Original Sin | Encyclopedia.com

IN THE BIBLE
First the possible evidence for original sin in the Old Testament is considered, then the New Testament teaching.

Possible Evidence in the Old Testament. The Old Testament makes no explicit or formal statement regarding the transmission of hereditary guilt from the first man to the entire human race; but such a doctrine harmonizes with the general atmosphere of the Old Testament and is hinted at in some passages. Thus, the story of the fall of man in Genesis ch. 3 explains the human condition, and this is marked by a universal tendency toward sin. Chapter 4 of Genesis (from the yahwist tradition, like ch. 3) illustrates, by a series of anecdotes, how sin has invaded mankind. Chapter 5 (of the Pentateuchal priestly writers) may show the same thing through its reduction of life spans (see also Gn 11.10–26, also of the priestly tradition), even though this would be a more subtle method. In Gn 6.5 a strong indictment is presented against man's universal inclination to sin, and the "justice" of Noe (Noah) is qualified by 8.21—a kind of divine resignation to man's sinfulness. Solomon's prayer (1 Kgs 8.46) implies the same, and Ecclesiastes is aware of some evil having entered into mankind (Eccl 7.20). The words of Ps 50 (51) 7 may be no more than a personal outcry, but many good scholars have seen a universal condition reflected in its words. Of dubious value is Jb 14.4 in the Masoretic Text, even if the Vulgate, perhaps through Christian influence, is most expressive. However, Wis2.24 is significant: "By the envy of the devil death entered into the world." In strict exegesis one may not call the doctrine of original sin, as defined by the Council of Trent, a teaching of the Old Testament; but the foundations for it are there, strong and undeniable.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I take the Bible seriously because there is historical evidence that backs it up. When you read the Bible over and again you notice things that you didn't notice before. 3 Evidences That Confirm the Bible Is Not Made Up
As I like to say, you cannot count the confirmations if you do not count the refutations. Sorry, until you admit that there is plenty of evidence that parts of the Bible are wrong you cannot claim that the Bible is supported by archaeological evidence.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Biased and makes assumptions about humanity that are not true given a good God.

Original sin is in the Bible. If we weren't born with original sin, wouldn't at least some people be perfect? Original sin - What is it?

Of this fact, David says in the Psalms, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). And Paul says in the New Testament, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Nevertheless, it should be noted that non-Christian faiths like secular humanism disagree with the concept of original sin, even going so far to assert that there is not any evil inherent in humanity. For example, psychologist Abraham Maslow states, "As far as I know we just don't have any intrinsic instincts for evil." Agreeing with Maslow is psychologist Carl Rogers, who claims, "I do not find that…evil is inherent in human nature."

These assertions, however, fail to explain the sinful and evil acts of humanity down through history. As theologian R. C. Sproul astutely observes, "If each one of us is born without a sinful nature, how do we account for the universality of sin? If four billion people were born with no inclination to sin, with no corruption to their nature, we would reasonably expect that at least some of them would refrain from falling. . . . But if everybody does it, without exception, then we begin to wonder why." Professor Reinhold Niebuhr goes so far as to say, "The doctrine of original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Original sin is in the Bible. If we weren't born with original sin, wouldn't at least some people be perfect? Original sin - What is it?
No it’s not. At least not in the way Augustine perverted it. Jesus was perfect. So are we. We are born in original goodness. Sin happens as we forget who we are. Sin covers the perfection. Salvation comes when we remember and scrape the scales of sin from our eyes.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
According to some interpretations. The problem is that the story never happened.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. The Sinfulness Of Mankind -By David J. Stewart

The Curse of the Sin Nature — All Humans are Born with it.

Romans 5:12 teaches us that Adam’s spiritual death has been passed down to all of humanity. This means we are ALL born spiritually dead. Adam and Eve would have lived forever had they not sinned. This is why each person MUST be born-again! The term “born-again” means “being born for the second time.” There is the physical birth and then there is the spiritual birth. We are born spiritually dead into this world without God. We are all born with a fallen nature, a natural tendency to sin.

The sin nature has been passed down to us from Adam. No one needs to teach a child how to lie, steal, cheat, etc. On the contrary, children need to be taught NOT to lie, steal or cheat, etc. The only two individuals who were ever born into this world without a fallen nature (sin nature) were Adam and Jesus Christ. Adam of course sinned and took upon himself the sin nature; Jesus NEVER sinned, not even once. Adam’s love for Eve superceded His love for God. He chose to sin with Eve at the expense of facing the judgment of God. Adam became a sinner and died spiritually the moment he sinned. He would be a sinner from that day forward, even unto his death. The rest of mankind does not have a choice on the matter, we all have that same sin nature because Adam chose to have it. We are all descendants of our great ancestral father, Adam; therefore, we are all born with the same infectious curse of sin and death. We all have the sin-tainted blood of Adam. We are all born spiritually dead (the natural man). Jesus on-the other-hand NEVER sinned, not even once... “For he hath made him to be sin for us, WHO KNEW NO SIN” (2nd Corinthians 5:21). This was absolutely necessary if Christ was to offer Himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind (as of a lamb without spot or blemish)
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
No it’s not. At least not in the way Augustine perverted it. Jesus was perfect. So are we. We are born in original goodness. Sin happens as we forget who we are. Sin covers the perfection. Salvation comes when we remember and scrape the scales of sin from our eyes.

I don't believe in imputed sin, but people inherit the sin nature from Adam, which is where our sinful choices comes from. The Chemistry Of The Blood - by M.R. DeHaan, M.D.

The Heresies of the “Total Depravity of Man” and “Unconditional Election”

We are all Hell-deserving sinners (Romans 3:10,23;6:23; Revelation 21:8). Man certainly is totally depraved without God when he is born (Psalm 51:5). However, mankind is NOT born with “original sin” as so many corrupted theologians are teaching today. Yes, mankind is born with a “sin-nature” handed down from the sin of Adam (Romans 5:12), but there is a vast difference between the Biblical teaching on the sin-nature and the demonic teaching of original sin. Catholics and Lutherans teach that infant baptism forgives the baby of “origin sin” that was inherited from Adam. The Catholics for centuries (until Pope Ratzinger changed the doctrine in 2005) taught that unbaptized children could not enter into Heaven. How foolish and unbiblical to teach that an innocent child could not enter Heaven.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
And yet... humanity is still here; the DNA has flowed across time since creation. By definition, death cannot have “reigned.”

The human spirit became separated from God because of sin. YOUR SOUL IS YOURS, BUT THE SPIRIT BELONGS TO GOD

While everyone's soul is fully active, not everyone's spirit is, because when Adam fell the spirit died and was separated from God. Only in Christ is the spirit reconnected and reconciled: "At one time you were separated from God. But now Christ has made you God's friends again ... by his death ... " (Colossians 1:21-22).
 
Top