Did Jesus Christ actually die?

[blü 2]

What difference does the amount of authors make? It doesn't make a difference with history books.

The question was whether Luke and Acts have a common author. It's not a question I've looked into. You'll be aware of the suggestions that Acts has more authors than one.

Now, what were all those other lies Jesus told, do you say?

 

[sojourner]

Maybe the word for virgin wasn't appropriate to use in that context. It's similar to Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate.

The Jesus myth was almost wholly ripped off from the mythic stories of Augustus. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the mythic Jesus was intended to entice followers of Augustus and to supplant Augustus. Their stories are amazingly parallel.

 

[Skywalker]

The question was whether Luke and Acts have a common author. It's not a question I've looked into. You'll be aware of the suggestions that Acts has more authors than one.

Now, what were all those other lies Jesus told, do you say?

The Pharisees admitted that Jesus said that he was God.

 

[sojourner]

Mark was more credible, he was there when Christ was arrested and he met Jesus. I think Luke met Jesus too because he was one of the 12 disciples. Mark didn't write from different people because he had a closer connection to Christ.

The authors did not know Jesus. There is no reason to think that the authors were disciples, and every reason to think they weren’t.

 

[sojourner]

Christ consciousness contradicts the words of Christ. Christ said that He is the way, the truth, and the life. How could that be the case if we all have Christ in us?

...and yet: “Let the same mind be in you...”

 

[Skywalker]

The authors did not know Jesus. There is no reason to think that the authors were disciples, and every reason to think they weren’t.

They all lived with Jesus. They are more credible than Gnostic sources. Why The Gnostic Gospels Aren’t Reliable Sources | Reasons for Jesus

By James Bishop| The Gnostic Gospels/texts, also known as the New Testament Apocrypha, consist of fifty-two texts discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, by an Arab, Muhammad ‘Alí al-Sammán, who came across jars while looking for a soft soil to fertilize his crops (1). These texts have excited many readers, including scholars and laypersons alike, for their depictions of Jesus Christ and his early disciples and followers.

This entry will briefly look at these texts and outline some of the reasons why most scholars have been hesitant to use the Gnostic sources as independent material for the life and ministry of the historical Jesus.

Smashing the jar, Muhammad discovered the contents of thirteen papyrus books bound in leather. Evidently, not all of these papyri survived as Muhammad’s mother, ‘Umm-Ahmad, said that she burned some of them along with straw to kindle a fire. Later the extant papyri were sold on the black market through antiquities dealers in Cairo but soon attracted the attention of Egyptian officials. The officials purchased one papyri book (codex), confiscated the other ten and a half of the thirteen, and placed what they had in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

However, part of the thirteenth codex was smuggled out of Egypt and put on sale in the United States, which cultivated a strong interest in the Dutch scholar and historian of religion Gilles Quispel. Quispel later flew to Egypt in an attempt to find the other codices. Visiting the Coptic Museum he photographed some of the texts and deciphered them only to discover many startling words and deeds of Jesus Christ and his disciples.

Although these texts contained many sayings paralleled in the New Testament gospels they were placed in unfamiliar contexts. Some of them even criticized Christian beliefs in the virgin birth of Christ and the central tenet of Christ’s bodily resurrection. These texts also purported to contain secret teachings from Christ given to his close disciples. The Apocryphon of John claims to reveal “the mysteries [and the] things hidden in silence” which Christ taught to his disciple John.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is constituted of the “stories of Thomas the Israelite” given to him by Christ. Many of these books are attributed to one of Christ’s followers, such as the Apocalypse of Paul, the Secret Book of James, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Philosophical and Theological Convictions

The Nag Hammadi texts, which we will henceforth simply call the Gnostic texts/writings (from the Greek word ‘gnosis’, meaning knowledge), attempted to combine Greek Neoplatonism, which emphasized the value of ideas and the devaluing of matter, with Christian symbolism, to produce an expression of Christianity more compatible with Greco-Roman thought and culture (2).

The Gnostics were a religious sect within the Christian-Jewish milieu that probably emerged at the beginning of the second century CE and who later died out in 381 CE when it was outlawed under Theodosius I who declared the Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire.

The devaluing of matter and the view that matter is evil is a common theme within the Gnostic texts. Contemporary philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig explains that “Gnosticism was an ancient near eastern philosophy which held that the physical world is evil and the spiritual realm is good” (3).

As such, this worldview is best viewed as dualistic as it presents two opposing forces: the material and the spiritual, with the former being evil and the latter good. The Gnostics also placed emphasis on secret knowledge and teachings as the path to salvation. This is a perspective we find strongly presented in the Gospel of Judas, for example. In Judas (this text, despite its title, was certainly not authored by the original disciple and famed betrayer, Judas), there is the promise of secret teachings, the denigration of the physical body, and the elevation of a single disciple or apostle.

Salvation comes only through secret knowledge of the spiritual realm, as this was believed to liberate the soul from imprisonment within the physical, material world. As such, salvation comes not from Christ’s atonement and resurrection but from the secret knowledge that Christ imparted to a select group of his followers. This is why in Judas it purports to be “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot.”

The Gnostics were also called docetists (docetism from the Greek dokein, meaning “to seem”) as since they believed Christ to be a fully divine being he could not have been a flesh and blood human being. Essentially Christ is a deity who had come to the Earth but only in the appearance of human flesh. He did not have a physical body but one that only appeared so, hence the term docetism (4).

The early Christians were critical of such views as it became clear what their implications were. It taught that Christ was never actually crucified for human sin as how could this be possible if he did not have a physical body? Similarly, Christ’s resurrection, a fundamental doctrine in Christianity from the religion’s earliest moments, was believed to be a physical event (the resurrection of Christ’s physical body from the dead), hence why the Gnostics rejected this.

The bishop Ignatius of Antioch, famous for his desire to suffer and die for Christ (for which he did), condemned the Gnostics for their denial of “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Scholar of church history Ryan Reeves observes how many modern people essentially hold to the opposite view of the Gnostic docetists,

“But what forever reason a certain number of people within the early church struggled with reckoning with Christ as fully man. Now that strikes us as a bit odd today in the modern twenty-first century because in many ways we have, at least in popular culture, something of the opposite effect: Christ is just a man, he was a great teacher, he was a great leader some might say, but there is no way he was God” (5).

 

[Subduction Zone]

They all lived with Jesus. They are more credible than Gnostic sources. Why The Gnostic Gospels Aren’t Reliable Sources | Reasons for Jesus

The evidence seems to tell us that this is not so. Why would you assume that they lived with Jesus?

 

[Skywalker]

...and yet: “Let the same mind be in you...”

The context of that verse is different from Christ consciousness. Does “Be Still & Know That I Am God” Mean To Meditate? | Reasons for Jesus

Context is everything

As always, one must look at the whole passage and see the context of the statement, especially since the Bible was not written in verses; chapters and verses were added centuries later. In one translation, the phrase is not “Be still” but “Cease striving.” The New American Standard has, “Cease striving and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.” Young’s Literal renders it, “Desist, and know that I [am] God, I am exalted among nations, I am exalted in the earth.”

The context is a reprimand about submitting to God in the midst of nations warring against God. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible’s comments on verse 10 say that God is warning those “who persecute the Church to cease their cruelty: for also they will feel that God is too strong for them against whom they fight.” This is because the preceding two verses say:

“Come, behold the works of the LORD, Who has wrought desolations in the earth.
He makes wars to cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariots with fire.” This is clearly talking about the power and might of God to the nations who have disregarded Him.

Another commentary renders the literal meaning of verse 10 as: “Leave off to oppose Me and vex My people. I am over all for their safety.” This is a warning from God to His enemies (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871).

Matthew Henry’s words on verse 10 are that it means “Let his enemies be still, and threaten no more, but know it, to their terror, that he is God, one infinitely above them, and that will certainly be too hard for them; let them rage no more, for it is all in vain.”

Charles H. Spurgeon’s remarks on verse 10 are “Hold off your hands, ye enemies! Sit down and wait in patience, ye believers! Acknowledge that Jehovah is God, ye who feel the terrors of his wrath! Adore him, and him only, ye who partake in the protection of his grace” (from The Treasury of David).

The earlier verses in chapter 46 tell those who trust in the Lord not to fear: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change; And though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea; Though its waters roar {and} foam, Though the mountains quake at its swelling pride.”

Why not fear? Because God is there and He is mighty. Therefore, the passage goes on to say, those who fight against God should cease and realize His might, and that He will be exalted over all. Verse 10 is a warning to those warring on God; it is a rebuke.

From the context of the passage, without even consulting commentaries, one can clearly see that verse 10 has nothing to do with meditation, but is rather a reprimand to those who are “striving” against God. They are to stop striving and realize His sovereign power, and that their efforts against God are futile.

 

[Skywalker]

The evidence seems to tell us that this is not so. Why would you assume that they lived with Jesus?

'
They traveled with Jesus in the three years that he preached.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'
They traveled with Jesus in the three years that he preached.

No serious scholar seems to believe that. They were written to long after Jesus's death for that to be the case and his followers were almost certainly illiterate.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Skywalker]

The Jesus myth was almost wholly ripped off from the mythic stories of Augustus. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the mythic Jesus was intended to entice followers of Augustus and to supplant Augustus. Their stories are amazingly parallel.

Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods. Osiris didn't come back to life as the prince of glory. He came back as a zombie. 22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods | Reasons for Jesus

1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.
Today just about every scholar in the relevant historical specializations unanimously rejects the notion that Jesus is a copy of pagan gods. It seems that the available evidence has persuaded them against these alleged parallels. For instance, T.N.D Mettinger of Lund University opines:

“THERE IS, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, NO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IS A MYTHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT…”

Warner Wallace, a former homicide detective, who himself looked into the allegations found that “The more you examine the nature of the gods who were worshiped before Jesus, the more you will notice their dissimilarities and the dishonesty of trying to compare them to the historical Jesus.”

Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian notes in his writing ‘Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?’: “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” Nash then goes on to say,

“TODAY MOST BIBLE SCHOLARS REGARD THE QUESTION AS A DEAD ISSUE.”

Another leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener writes that: “When you make the comparisons, you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

JZ Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religions claims that:

“THE IDEA OF DYING AND RISING GODS IS LARGELY A MISNOMER BASED ON IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTIONS AND EXCEEDINGLY LATE OR HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS TEXTS.”

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, clearly shows his annoyance when he writes:

“Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously.”

As Bart Ehrman, atheist professor of Religious Studies at UNC, has said:

“The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).”

Professor James Dunn in his article on “Myth” in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, writes: “Myth is a term of at least doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels.”

 

[Skywalker]

The question was whether Luke and Acts have a common author. It's not a question I've looked into. You'll be aware of the suggestions that Acts has more authors than one.

Now, what were all those other lies Jesus told, do you say?

The amount of authors in the book of Acts has nothing to do with its credibility.

 

[Skywalker]

No serious scholar seems to believe that. They were written to long after Jesus's death for that to be the case and his followers were almost certainly illiterate.

Where is your evidence?

They were not illiterate according to all sources. Were Jesus’ Disciples Illiterate Peasants? | Reasons for Jesus

By Mikel Del Rosario| The New Testament was originally written in Greek. But some skeptics say this shows many New Testament books must have been forged–that the people who wrote them probably weren’t Jesus’ disciples. Why? Because most 1st century Jews living where Jesus lived couldn’t read or write at all.

Since Jesus’ disciples spoke Aramaic, how could these guys write any New Testament books, in Greek, if they couldn’t even read or write in their own language?

In this post, I’ll show you to respond to the idea that the Gospels are forgeries because Jesus’ disciples were all illiterate peasants.

Did Jews in Galilee Know Greek?
Skeptics like Bart Ehrman think Jesus’ disciples couldn’t have known Greek, much less written any of the New Testament books in Greek. In Forged, he writes: “We know for certain of only two (1st century) authors in Palestine who produced literary works (in Greek)…Josephus…and a man named Justus (p 73).” He even says “it is highly probable that [Peter] could not write at all” (p.75).

Others, like Mark Chancey, in Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus, assert there’s no evidence that most Jews in Galilee knew Greek (p 124). Additionally, Catherine Hezser suggests, “in some rural towns and settlements the literacy rate will have been below one percent and some villages may not have even had one single individual who could read” (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, p 35).

But what about this? Does this mean all Jesus’ disciples were illiterate peasants? Let’s take a look at the rest of the story.

Were All Jews Illiterate peasants?
Were all Jews living in the time of Jesus illiterate peasants? What skeptics don’t often acknowledge is that The Mishnah and Dead Sea Scrolls show some Jews taught their kids to read. In fact, the Mishnah shows us they even encouraged girls to learn Greek!

After the war with Rome, the Mishnah records some directions saying not to teach kids Greek. But this tips us off to the fact that some people were in fact teaching Jewish kids Greek.

This seems to square with the Gospels. Over 60 times, Jesus asks the Pharisees and Sadducees and others “haven’t you read?” not “haven’t you heard?” Clearly, Jewish scribes could read and write, too! So it isn’t true that all the Jews in Galilee were illiterate.

 

[blü 2]

The amount of authors in the book of Acts has nothing to do with its credibility.

Why do you keep ducking the important question?

In addition to his repeated and consistent lie that he wasn't God, what other lies do you say Jesus told?

 

[Skywalker]

Why do you keep ducking the important question?

In addition to his repeated and consistent lie that he wasn't God, what other lies do you say Jesus told?

The disciples believed that Jesus was God. Thomas called him his Lord and God. The Disciples Believed That Jesus Was God | Reasons for Jesus

By George Mitrakos| Many of those who fall into the category of “divinity deniers” claim that no early adherents of the Lord and of the Christian way of life ever held to the creed that he was God or that he possessed the same nature and substance as the Father. Any such understanding of Jesus is claimed to have been a later development by the church.

But when we look to the testimony of Scripture itself, we will unquestionably come to realize that Jesus was believed to be God by His earliest followers and disciples, proving that this is not a later development invented by the church fathers.

The Apostle John
When reading John’s gospel, we see that he apprises unto the reader that Jesus Christ existed prior to the establishment of the heavens and the earth. In other words, it is communicated that Jesus existed eternally into the past. He also discloses unto the world that Jesus was alongside God (the Father) and that he was God (John 1:1-14). This indubitably makes Christ both part of the trinity and God himself.

In fact, Jesus is called the “only God” in John 1:18, or the “only begotten God” in the NASB. The “monogenes theos” in Greek, who is one with the Father (John 10:30) and is the “I Am” of the Old Testament (John 8:54).

When it comes to John 1:1 objections do begin to materialize… For example: Many in the world today love to voice the impression that within the Greek, the phrase is not God but “a God”, which lies in congruence with the New World Translation’s rendering of the passage “kai theos in o logos” which, in verbatim, means: And God was the Word (Jesus).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” – John 1:1-3

In other words, the universe was made through the person of Jesus who was God from the beginning. Furthermore, John records his heavenly revelation of Jesus in the book of Revelation where Jesus calls himself the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega:

“I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST” – REVELATION 1:17

“I am the first and the last” – Revelation 2:8

“I am the Alpha and the Omega” – Revelation 22:13

What makes these verses significant to this discussion is that this the Bible teaches that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is the one who is the first and the last (Isaiah 41:4 Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 21:7)


The Apostle Thomas
Let us now move onto Thomas. Following the death of our saviour, Thomas is recorded to have called Jesus his Lord and his God. (John 20:28) A late great Islamic scholar known as Ahmad Deedat, in his debate with Annish Shorosh stated that the words of Thomas served as nothing but an expression of shock or embarrassment, rather than a clear statement intended exclusively for the Messiah.

This is false because when we circumspectly read the passage in question, it distinctly says that Thomas directed this to Jesus, “ipen efton” . In other words, this proclamation was fixed towards the Messiah and not a private self-expression. An expression of shock is on no account levelled towards the individual to whom you are communing with.

Furthermore, If Ahmad Deedat were right, then Thomas would be taking the Lord’s name in vain, which Jesus would have amended or rebuked…. But he didn’t. Rather, he blessed him. Contrast that when John falls at the feet of an angel in Revelation 19:10, and the angel tells him to worship God only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They were not illiterate according to all sources. Were Jesus’ Disciples Illiterate Peasants? | Reasons for Jesus

LOL!! Your source refutes itself in the first sentence. They start out with a real scholar telling you what the case most likely was and then it goes to Liars for Jesus.

When are you going to learn how to use reliable sources. You refuted yourself again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods. Osiris didn't come back to life as the prince of glory. He came back as a zombie. 22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods | Reasons for Jesus

And your source refutes itself by using a strawman argument. Congratulations. No one has said that Jesus is a copy. They got ideas from other myths. This has been explained to you before. You know better. Why repeat a failed argument?

 

[Skywalker]

LOL!! Your source refutes itself in the first sentence. They start out with a real scholar telling you what the case most likely was and then it goes to Liars for Jesus.

When are you going to learn how to use reliable sources. You refuted yourself again.

Just because many of the ancient Hebrew people were illiterate doesn't mean that the disciples were. Were Jesus’ Disciples Illiterate Peasants? | Reasons for Jesus

Were All Jesus’ Disciples Illiterate Peasants?
Nope. Some of Jesus’ disciples could probably read and write. Think about Zebedee (the father of James and John). He owned a fishing fleet and hired employees to work for him. That doesn’t sound like he was an illiterate peasant. It’s not a stretch to think his kids could probably read and write, too.

Also, consider Peter. His large home was discovered and excavated in 2011.Someone with a place like this was probably not an illiterate peasant! What about Matthew, the tax-collector? He had to be able to read since he worked with tax documents. Beyond this, he was probably bilingual since he worked with Romans and Jews from all over the diaspora.

Not only were these disciples not illiterate peasants, but at least those who were fishermen, craftsmen, and tax-collectors probably knew Greek, too.

Israelite and tax collectors at the time knew Greek, and many the house of the apostle Peter was discovered by archaeology.

 

[Skywalker]

And your source refutes itself by using a strawman argument. Congratulations. No one has said that Jesus is a copy. They got ideas from other myths. This has been explained to you before. You know better. Why repeat a failed argument?

I didn't say that people say that Jesus is an exact copy-I was saying that a lot of the similarities between Jesus and pagan gods are not supported by the text. It's very questionable historically, the assertion that Jesus didn't exist. It's questionable if Zeus or Osiris existed. 22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods | Reasons for Jesus

2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him.


The most credible New Testament, Biblical, historical, and early Christianity scholars today, from all backgrounds of belief, agree wholeheartedly that Jesus existed. Of course the debate arises in what we can know about Jesus but of which is irrelevant to this discussion. This very much separates Jesus from many of the dying and rising gods that often have no place in history as historical figures.

As the once skeptical professor Bultmann penned: “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

As Paul Maier, a former Professor of Ancient History, likewise remarks:

“THE TOTAL EVIDENCE IS SO OVERPOWERING, SO ABSOLUTE THAT ONLY THE SHALLOWEST OF INTELLECTS WOULD DARE TO DENY JESUS’ EXISTENCE.”

Professor Craig Evans, widely known for his writings on the historical Jesus, says that: “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Even leading anti-Christian skeptic, professor Bart Ehrman compares mythicism to young earth creationism: “These views are so extreme [that Jesus did not exist] and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

Grant says, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’

As The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History of Western Michigan University Dr. Paul Maier wrote in an article on whether or not Jesus existed:

“No, he didn’t!” some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from “the fable of Christianity.” But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by “the village atheist,” [and] bloggers on the internet.

SKEPTICS SHOULD FOCUS INSTEAD ON WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS MORE THAN A MAN. THAT, AT LEAST, COULD EVOKE A REASONABLE DEBATE AMONG REASONABLE INQUIRERS, RATHER THAN A POINTLESS DISCUSSION WITH SENSATIONALISTS WHO STRUGGLE TO REJECT THE OBVIOUS.”

So, if anything, the claim that Jesus never existed as a historical figure is viewed as an absurdity and is not even on the table of historical scholarship. Burridge and Could suggest an absence of such thinking in professional scholarship: “I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that (that Jesus did not exist) anymore.”

 

[blü 2]

The disciples believed that Jesus was God. Thomas called him his Lord and God.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

It doesn't alter the fifteen or more denials by Jesus that he's God and the denials by Paul and others that he's God, many of which I've quoted to you. Nor does it alter the fact that he never once claims to be God.

But you say he's a liar and a deceiver, that you know better, he's really God whether he likes it or not.

So tell us what else he lied about, No more shilly-shally please ─ spell it out.