Muslims and Christians Only: Was Jesus Crucified Or Not?

[Estro Felino]

Yes, he was crucified. Crucifixion was a very common penalty inflicted to rebellious slaves, murderers, etc.
It was very ancient. Diodorus Siculus says that even Agathocles, Greek king of Sicily, used to crucify Carthaginian war prisoners (IV century BC).

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, he was crucified. Crucifixion was a very common penalty inflicted to rebellious slaves, murderers, etc.
It was very ancient. Diodorus Siculus says that even Agathocles, Greek king of Sicily, used to crucify Carthaginian war prisoners (IV century BC).

Although I have taken the position of traditional Christian stance on this topic, the mere fact that crucifixion was employed by the Romans does not necessarily mean that Jesus was crucified. That position/line of reasoning is also used by secular historians, but it's really just suggesting a possibility. Similar to 'Jesus ate leavened bread all the time', or something lol you get the picture.

 

[Estro Felino]

Although I have taken the position of traditional Christian stance on this topic, the mere fact that crucifixion was employed by the Romans does not necessarily mean that Jesus was crucified. That position/line of reasoning is also used by secular historians, but it's really just suggesting a possibility. Similar to 'Jesus ate leavened bread all the time', or something lol you get the picture.

If the Gospels say that he was crucified, it means that he probably was. If he had been beheaded, or hung, they would have said it. Plato said that Socrates was poisoned.He was forced to drink cicuta. I have no reason to doubt that he was poisoned. Because if he had been slain, Plato would have said it.

 

[Desert Snake]

If the Gospels say that he was crucified, it means that he probably was.

Great..but that isn't what you wrote..


If you had written that as your reason to believe, no argument from me.

 

[TheScholar]

Yes Jesus was crucified. That was the standard means of execution for people Rome wanted to dispatch, so there is a high probability that it is correct.

 

[Smart_Guy]

....so there is a high probability that it is correct.

Hi there

If I may ask for further clarification; does that mean there is a possibility it was not correct? If yes, why do you believe so?

I'm not very familiar with modern Christianity, so please forgive me if I impose so much.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hi there

If I may ask for further clarification; does that mean there is a possibility it was not correct? If yes, why do you believe so?

I'm not very familiar with modern Christianity, so please forgive me if I impose so much.

You mean that he was executed otherwise? Yes, everything is possible

 

[Smart_Guy]

You mean that he was executed otherwise? Yes, everything is possible

I swear I'm not trying to prove something when I asked that question

I only want to know what is his belief that he said "a high possibility it is correct" other than "definitely".

 

[Brickjectivity]

I swear I'm not trying to prove something when I asked that question

I only want to know what is his belief that he said "a high possibility it is correct" other than "definitely".

I believe he is basing that argument, for it is an argument, upon the ancient historian Flavius Josephus in chapter 11 of his work titled The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. It is his account of the six months in which the Roman general, Titus, overthrew Jerusalem and crucified thousands of people. In addition to the account of Titus action, it is thought that the Romans crucified people frequently. It was a public, naked, wounded, painful death lasting several days in length which discouraged disobedience.

People believe that Jesus was crucified. It cannot really be proven or argued without some probability, but what can be proven or argued with no probability? I know of no thing that can. John is the odd gospel. Here is a web site where someone has gone through and observed differences between John and the three synoptic gospels. http://folksongcollector.com/refutation/contents.htm "The Refutation of John" -- by Mary Berg. I don't agree with her about throwing John out since I think he is very important, and I don't find him to be someone who limits love to 'Friends only' like she does. Instead I think he just describes love for everyone in a different way. I disagree with her about things, but I agree that there are major differences between John and the other three gospels. The four most important documents which we rely upon to describe the crucifixion to us are different about some things. The point is that it does not make sense to therefore argue matter of factly and without any question that the crucifixion of Jesus happened. It is a matter of belief, but the probability that he was crucified seems high.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe he is basing that argument, for it is an argument, upon the ancient historian Flavius Josephus in chapter 11 of his work titled The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. It is his account of the six months in which the Roman general, Titus, overthrew Jerusalem and crucified thousands of people. In addition to the account of Titus action, it is thought that the Romans crucified people frequently. It was a public, naked, wounded, painful death lasting several days in length which discouraged disobedience.

People believe that Jesus was crucified. It cannot really be proven or argued without some probability, but what can be proven or argued with no probability? I know of no thing that can. John is the odd gospel. Here is a web site where someone has gone through and observed differences between John and the three synoptic gospels. Table of Contents "The Refutation of John" -- by Mary Berg. I don't agree with her about throwing John out since I think he is very important, and I don't find him to be someone who limits love to 'Friends only' like she does. Instead I think he just describes love for everyone in a different way. I disagree with her about things, but I agree that there are major differences between John and the other three gospels. The four most important documents which we rely upon to describe the crucifixion to us are different about some things. The point is that it does not make sense to therefore argue matter of factly and without any question that the crucifixion of Jesus happened. It is a matter of belief, but the probability that he was crucified seems high.

Thanks for the feed back

I was also wondering if Jesus was not killed at all, in the Christian beliefs. Does any of the views suggest that he ascended to heaven like Muslims believe?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for the feed back

I was also wondering if Jesus was not killed at all, in the Christian beliefs. Does any of the views suggest that he ascended to heaven like Muslims believe?

Modern views do not consider that, but it is within the scope of possibility given that early Christianity is obscure. You'd have to re-engineer a lot of modern Christianity to be compatible with that. A lot of NT writings would contradict it.

A lot of lost information about Christianity has become public over the last century, and modern Christians are coming to grips with it in different ways. I don't know a lot about all of the early Christian groups myself. I know that some were condemned as heretical and erased from existence. Some died out. New ones have appeared now and then throughout history.

Ancient viewpoints about the cross are obscure, but we now know there was a lot of variation in ancient Christian writing. Gnostics are an example of the variations in early Christianity. The closest thing to what you are talking about (I mean with Jesus going to heaven instead of dying) -- the closest thing to it that we have a record of might be the Gnostic believers. The gnostics were a group who disappeared long ago, and they are today considered to be heretics. Most of what we know of them was written by Iranaeus the elder around 200 AD. (Title: "Against Heresy") Some scholars (Helen Pagel and her prof) think that Paul the Apostle had a lot of gnostic ideas. Even if he was gnostic-like he talked like Jesus was real and also crucified in his letters. You can read his letters either way, and they still are readable. We also have some writings of groups who denounced Paul. The point of this is that we don't actually have a paper record and people debate the purpose of Jesus death. The most clear modern explanation for his death is in the book Hebrews.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Modern views do not consider that, but it is within the scope of possibility given that early Christianity is obscure. You'd have to re-engineer a lot of modern Christianity to be compatible with that. A lot of NT writings would contradict it.

A lot of lost information about Christianity has become public over the last century, and modern Christians are coming to grips with it in different ways. I don't know a lot about all of the early Christian groups myself. I know that some were condemned as heretical and erased from existence. Some died out. New ones have appeared now and then throughout history.

Ancient viewpoints about the cross are obscure, but we now know there was a lot of variation in ancient Christian writing. Gnostics are an example of the variations in early Christianity. The closest thing to what you are talking about (I mean with Jesus going to heaven instead of dying) -- the closest thing to it that we have a record of might be the Gnostic believers. The gnostics were a group who disappeared long ago, and they are today considered to be heretics. Most of what we know of them was written by Iranaeus the elder around 200 AD. (Title: "Against Heresy") Some scholars (Helen Pagel and her prof) think that Paul the Apostle had a lot of gnostic ideas. Even if he was gnostic-like he talked like Jesus was real and also crucified in his letters. You can read his letters either way, and they still are readable. We also have some writings of groups who denounced Paul. The point of this is that we don't actually have a paper record and people debate the purpose of Jesus death. The most clear modern explanation for his death is in the book Hebrews.

Again, I thank you very much for the information

Sorry, when I tried to frubal you, RF rejected it saying I'm out of quota

 

[sojourner]

A 8000 BC book said that the earth was created from the moon and a 2000 AD book said the opposite - why believing the latter , because the 8000 BC book is closer to the creation of the earth .

A dead man on the cross who said before his death ' Eli Eli Lama Sbachtani' ( meaning GOD had already left him ) suddenly became alive after 03 days - logically , scientifically , archaeologically and morally a fake story indeed .

On the other hand a man was rescued from the torture of crucifixion and said ' GOD is with me' and remain alive and fresh till his natural death- logically , scientifically , archaeologically and morally a great story indeed .

This is nuts! Which are you going to believe? A medical text from the 1600s, because that's closer to Hippocrates, or a medical text from the last 10 years?

If you think that Jesus being saved from crucifixion makes for a greater moral than Jesus going through death, then you don't understand enough about Christianity to even have a dog in this fight.

 

[sojourner]

Hello everyone. I want to have a debate between Muslims and Christians only. I do not want anyone else to participate in the debate.

So, the question is this: Was Jesus crucified or not? As for me, I strongly believe that He was indeed crucified but the Quran states that He was not crucified. Here is the evidence for believing that He was indeed crucified:

In addition to the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus we also have the testimony of Josephus, a Jewish historian; Tacitus, a Roman historian; and a possible reference to His crucifixion in the Babylonian Talmud. There is also a letter from a person named Mara Bar-Serapion which mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. You can see more about these evidences at Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

So, Muslims, why do you believe that Jesus was not crucified? Please provide rebuttals.

The chances are that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century. In all likelihood, his body was either buried in a mass grave, or -- more likely -- thrown to the dogs.

 

[heksesang]

"Realized"? Um, no. Jesus is fully God and fully man, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Jesus wasn't God. He was like God. Just like how humans were intended to be. We were created as an image of God, that means God had the intentions of creating human beings who were as perfect as he is.

Jesus lived up to that ideal of the perfect human being, and as such God used him as an example for the rest of us. Something we should aspire to. A proof of what we humans can be.

The death on the crucifix was important, because as the "role model", Jesus had to do the right thing. Avoiding the crucifixion would betray his message of turning the other cheek - even if they did not have any right to crucify him, he'd let them do it.

That being said, the crucifixion had nothing to do with sin.

"If a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live." - Ezek 18:21-22
​

Even according to the Old Testament, if you turn away from your sins and does the right thing, God will not hold the sins against you. The verse is so clear that I cannot understand where people get the idea that God wants someone to pay for all our sins.

And once you've got all this "payment for sins" stuff out of the way, there is no good reason why God couldn't have made it look like they crucified Jesus when they crucified someone else, like the Muslims believe, except that such an approach seems very deceitful and I cannot imagine God playing tricks on people like that. If he really wanted to save Jesus from the death on the cross, he would have made it very clear, not deceiving the ones who wanted to kill Jesus to let them believe they did. Why would God let the unjust believe they won?

And just to clear it out the way, there is no way Jesus would ever have been let off the hook by the Romans. We know from historical evidence that it was Pilate who was in charge at the time and that he was a ruthless person (the Biblical image of him is just so wrong). There is no way he'd let the leader of a rebellious movement like Christianity live.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Jesus wasn't God. He was like God. Just like how humans were intended to be. We were created as an image of God, that means God had the intentions of creating human beings who were as perfect as he is.

Jesus lived up to that ideal of the perfect human being, and as such God used him as an example for the rest of us. Something we should aspire to. A proof of what we humans can be.

The death on the crucifix was important, because as the "role model", Jesus had to do the right thing. Avoiding the crucifixion would betray his message of turning the other cheek - even if they did not have any right to crucify him, he'd let them do it.

That being said, the crucifixion had nothing to do with sin.

"If a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live." - Ezek 18:21-22
​

Even according to the Old Testament, if you turn away from your sins and does the right thing, God will not hold the sins against you. The verse is so clear that I cannot understand where people get the idea that God wants someone to pay for all our sins.

And once you've got all this "payment for sins" stuff out of the way, there is no good reason why God couldn't have made it look like they crucified Jesus when they crucified someone else, like the Muslims believe, except that such an approach seems very deceitful and I cannot imagine God playing tricks on people like that. If he really wanted to save Jesus from the death on the cross, he would have made it very clear, not deceiving the ones who wanted to kill Jesus to let them believe they did. Why would God let the unjust believe they won?

And just to clear it out the way, there is no way Jesus would ever have been let off the hook by the Romans. We know from historical evidence that it was Pilate who was in charge at the time and that he was a ruthless person (the Biblical image of him is just so wrong). There is no way he'd let the leader of a rebellious movement like Christianity live.

In reply to the red part above ... you are right that crucifixion has nothing to do with sin as you have shown as unnecessary through scripture itself but your assertion that Jesus(pbuh) did not want to avoid Crucifixion is incorrect as can be seen from the following scriptures :

He asked his companions to keep watch for him ...
Matthew 26:40
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter.
(if he didn't want to avoid it, why you need someone to watch out for you)

Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
(a person crying to God to save him the moment before death, doesn't seem like a person willingly not trying to avoid death)

So Jesus(pbuh) in fact did pray to God and asked to be saved. So that leaves you with only one explanation which is the Muslim version. Because if Crucifixion has nothing to do with payment of sin and if Jesus(pbuh) did not want to be crucified willingly ... then the Crucifixion serves no purpose at all. So it probably did't happen. In fact, the following scripture confirms that even more.

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

In reply to the red part above ... you are right that crucifixion has nothing to do with sin as you have shown as unnecessary through scripture itself but your assertion that Jesus(pbuh) did not want to avoid Crucifixion is incorrect as can be seen from the following scriptures :

He asked his companions to keep watch for him ...
Matthew 26:40
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter.
(if he didn't want to avoid it, why you need someone to watch out for you)

Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
(a person crying to God to save him the moment before death, doesn't seem like a person willingly not trying to avoid death)

So Jesus(pbuh) in fact did pray to God and asked to be saved. So that leaves you with only one explanation which is the Muslim version. Because if Crucifixion has nothing to do with payment of sin and if Jesus(pbuh) did not want to be crucified willingly ... then the Crucifixion serves no purpose at all. So it probably did't happen. In fact, the following scripture confirms that even more.

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Peace.

This may be the worst exegetical treatment of these texts, and the poorest excuse of proof-texting I've ever seen.

When Jesus is quoted as saying, "My God, my God..." he wasn't praying for deliverance -- he was quoting Psalm 22, which is a lament of sacrifice. Here, Matthew hopes to closely align Jesus as soter.

 

[loverOfTruth]

This may be the worst exegetical treatment of these texts, and the poorest excuse of proof-texting I've ever seen.

When Jesus is quoted as saying, "My God, my God..." he wasn't praying for deliverance -- he was quoting Psalm 22, which is a lament of sacrifice. Here, Matthew hopes to closely align Jesus as soter.

You mean to say that we don't really know if Jesus(pbuh) really said that or Matthew just makes Jesus(pbuh) say that(as he writes) ... like so many other Jesus's (pbuh) statements?

And right, Jesus was quoting Psalms ... at the time of his death ... not praying to God. What else are you gonna come up with ? Also, note that he didn't just say My God, My God ... he said : "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" ... regardless, whether praying or quoting, you would only do that if you are in distress and think God has really given up on you and letting you die.

Not to mention .... Jesus(pbuh) prayed to be saved and was heard by God as stated in Hebrews 5:7
"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. "

Nice try though ...

 

[sojourner]

You mean to say that we don't really know if Jesus(pbuh) really said that or Matthew just makes Jesus(pbuh) say that(as he writes) ... like so many other Jesus's (pbuh) statements?

And right, Jesus was quoting Psalms ... at the time of his death ... not praying to God. What else are you gonna come up with ? Also, note that he didn't just say My God, My God ... he said : "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" ... regardless, whether praying or quoting, you would only do that if you are in distress and think God has really given up on you and letting you die.

Not to mention .... Jesus(pbuh) prayed to be saved and was heard by God as stated in Hebrews 5:7
"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. "

Nice try though ...

God! It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a medieval sheep-shearer. :thud:

The gospels simply aren't historical accounts, as we understand historical accounts. Some scholars believe they're reasonably close in attributing authenticity to most of the quotations attributed to Jesus, but the statement that begins "My God, my God..." is a direct quote of Psalm 22:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer;
and by night, but find no rest.
3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4 In you our ancestors trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried, and were saved;
in you they trusted, and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm, and not human;
scorned by others, and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
8 “Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver—
let him rescue the one in whom he delights!”
9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb;
you kept me safe on my mother’s breast.
10 On you I was cast from my birth,
and since my mother bore me you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

etc.

Because Matthew is trying to establish Jesus as soter for his audience, he has Jesus quote this line from a well-known lament of sacrifice. it's simply not a case of "this is what someone would say in distress." It's got a literary and theological reason for having been put there. Period.

Yes, Jesus asked to be spared from crucifixion, yet, as we're told in Philippians, Jesus "was obedient to the point of death." So what? None of this negates the extremely high probability that Jesus died of crucifixion.

Nice try, though. ;-)

 

[loverOfTruth]

God! It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a medieval sheep-shearer. :thud:

The gospels simply aren't historical accounts, as we understand historical accounts. Some scholars believe they're reasonably close in attributing authenticity to most of the quotations attributed to Jesus, but the statement that begins "My God, my God..." is a direct quote of Psalm 22:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer;
and by night, but find no rest.
3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4 In you our ancestors trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried, and were saved;
in you they trusted, and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm, and not human;
scorned by others, and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
8 “Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver—
let him rescue the one in whom he delights!”
9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb;
you kept me safe on my mother’s breast.
10 On you I was cast from my birth,
and since my mother bore me you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

etc.

Because Matthew is trying to establish Jesus as soter for his audience, he has Jesus quote this line from a well-known lament of sacrifice. it's simply not a case of "this is what someone would say in distress." It's got a literary and theological reason for having been put there. Period.

Yes, Jesus asked to be spared from crucifixion, yet, as we're told in Philippians, Jesus "was obedient to the point of death." So what? None of this negates the extremely high probability that Jesus died of crucifixion.

Nice try, though. ;-)

Feel free to enjoy your self-delusion while it lasts ... ;-)