Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

[joelr]

JW's are not 'eclectic' because we derive our beliefs from just one source.....the Bible....and there are about eight and half million of us who all believe the same things, in every nation on earth.....we all believe the things that Jesus taught....not the twisted stuff that came later when humans adopted 'lost puppies' from pagan religions....the trinity.....immortality of the soul.....hellfire.....none of these were taught by Jesus, but all of Christendom's churches teach them.....coincidentally, so do the non-Christian religions.

Everything in the gospels is pagan.

Bullet points:

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
• • They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
  • They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
  • They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
  • That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
  • By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
  • Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
  • They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
  • Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
  • Born of a virgin

add in abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice and you have Christianity.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier


also Zoroastrianism, the Persian religion that pre-dates Christianity has many of the christian beliefs that you mentioned like hellfire but also things that Jesus did teach like the war between good vs evil, the end of days, heaven, good people will be resurrected in the afterlife

After the Persian invasion of Judea these concepts begin showing up in the OT.

22:21

 

[Jumi]

No. Those are links to various sources you can choose to open and read as there are more than one available.

Well much of the results of that search actually argue against your idea. Which is why I asked...

 

[Deeje]

Everything in the gospels is pagan.

Really? You say that with such conviction.....my response?....

You are free to believe anything you wish.....if you don't accept Christianity....then don't. I'm sure God is not losing any sleep over it.

Its a funny thing about atheists.....the old saying "misery loves company".....apparently, so do atheists. I am left to wonder who they are trying to convince.....themselves or the Christians?
Firing blanks I reckon.

I have a feeling that one day everyone will be a believer......but not voluntarily for the majority.....

 

[Shia Islam]

A Godly man evading his own death penalty only to have another crucified in his place? That's not honorable.

Hi,
Here is a Hadith replying to your objection.

I must say that I did not search the authenticity of the Hadith, although in the chain of its narrators there is a man who is considered a man of God among all of the Muslims.

Now the Hadith says the following:
At a certain point Jesus asked the disciples the following Question:

أيكم يلقى عليه شبهي فيقتل مكاني ويكون معي في درجتي ؟

Here is my quick and rough translation of the Hadith:

Who among you is welling to accept that he will be (miraculously) made to resemble me, and then he will be killed and will be in my rank (in paradise)?

So based on the answer to this question one of them was chosen and was crucified in the place of Jesus.

 

[Augustus]

There is evidence that these roman executions were common, and that Jesus being a member of this region and one who Biblically is said to have been executed by this method, there is no tangible evidence that we have today that can cross reference that verifies this or this item was a part of Jesus' execution. Even if we have the actual nails themselves we do not have a database for the DNA of Jesus to say it was actually his DNA that matches due to the fact Jesus allegedly ascended so we have no proof I don't see where the debate is. I'm not denying the possibility of his execution, I'm denying any tangible evidence that we have that can be verifiably linked to Jesus being executed.

It's not the 'possibility', it is the probability.

Would you agree that there is a very strong balance of probabilities that he was crucified, and that this is by far the most reasonable explanation?

If you say so, the story of Jesus is not unique....

Gods sometimes had miraculous births or were or had some form of life restored to them, none of them have a particularly similar story to that of Jesus though.

 

[Cooky]

Hi,
Here is a Hadith replying to your objection.

I must say that I did not search the authenticity of the Hadith, although in the chain of its narrators there is a man who is considered a man of God among all of the Muslims.

Now the Hadith says the following:
At a certain point Jesus asked the disciples the following Question:

أيكم يلقى عليه شبهي فيقتل مكاني ويكون معي في درجتي ؟

Here is my quick and rough translation of the Hadith:

Who among you is welling to accept that he will be (miraculously) made to resemble me, and then he will be killed and will be in my rank (in paradise)?

So based on the answer to this question one of them was chosen and was crucified in the place of Jesus.

If that were true, then Jesus would be an evil monster.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It's not the 'possibility', it is the probability.

Would you agree that there is a very strong balance of probabilities that he was crucified, and that this is by far the most reasonable explanation?



Gods sometimes had miraculous births or were or had some form of life restored to them, none of them have a particularly similar story to that of Jesus though.

Ok man, I give up this is pointless. You have your views I have mine.

 

[Kenny]

This is a question that is often debated by Muslims and Christians.

The Christians refer to the four gospel accounts that provide clear accounts of Christ's crucifixion. Historians, including atheists usually agree Christ was crucified. When they don't its because they don't believe Jesus existed at all.

Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified at all based on the following verses in the Quran.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.

Since, according to what I believed would be authoritative on the matter, some of those in authority wanted him dead - they would know if it was him or not; those closest to him and wrote about him would know if it was him or not; those against him would have produced a body to refute that he was risen; and the historicity of document after that say that he was crucified- I would have to come to the conclusion that he was

 

[Augustus]

Ok man, I give up this is pointless. You have your views I have mine.

Fair enough. Naive scepticism isn't exactly uncommon on this issue.

Almost all ancient history is probability, not proof. We can't 'prove' Alexander the Great existed, yet it doesn't take 'faith' to believe he did.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi,
Here is a Hadith replying to your objection.

I must say that I did not search the authenticity of the Hadith, although in the chain of its narrators there is a man who is considered a man of God among all of the Muslims.

Now the Hadith says the following:
At a certain point Jesus asked the disciples the following Question:

أيكم يلقى عليه شبهي فيقتل مكاني ويكون معي في درجتي ؟

Here is my quick and rough translation of the Hadith:

Who among you is welling to accept that he will be (miraculously) made to resemble me, and then he will be killed and will be in my rank (in paradise)?

So based on the answer to this question one of them was chosen and was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Is this Hadith attributed to Muhammad?

Assuming this is really true. What happened to Jesus? Did He die naturally later?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is a question that is often debated by Muslims and Christians.

The Christians refer to the four gospel accounts that provide clear accounts of Christ's crucifixion. Historians, including atheists usually agree Christ was crucified. When they don't its because they don't believe Jesus existed at all.

Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified at all based on the following verses in the Quran.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.

I would say what difference does it make now.
Within The world wide Muslim community, the belief that Jesus is still to return and die, before Day of Resurrection, had become widespread. In more recent years, the belief in return of Jesus, or even the Mahdi, has been fading.
The Christians likewise, believed in return of Christ. How strong really this belief is, among Christians in our days, is unknown to me. But, my guess is, the belief in the Return, has been also fading among Christians as well.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Thanks and where is that mentioned in the Baha'i writings?

It is in the Book of Iqan. Search for 'star'. Bahaulllah explains Bible passages related to return and sign of son of man in heaven.

 

[oldbadger]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.

I reckon that Jesus Son-of-Man and Jesus-Son-of-the Father (Barabbas) could have been the same person. and so.... either:-
Jesus was not crucified, but another (whipped bloody) in his place, on Pilate's orders.
Or:-
Jesus was taken down from the cross alive, on Pilate's orders..

And so Islam is probably right.

 

[oldbadger]

T
For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.

Since Bahai does not believe that Jesus was resurrected...
.... if Bahai accepts that Jesus arrived in Galilee soon after that week and was seen by many of the disciples, then Bahai surely must believe that Jesus was either substituted or taken down alive and got away?

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Well much of the results of that search actually argue against your idea. Which is why I asked...

None of what you state there is true.

The Bing Link search terms were very articulate as pertaine to my "idea", as you call it.
oldest manuscript jesus crucifixion - Bing

And the subsequent BING results sustain my statement and the keywords used.

If you are incapable of being intellectually honest in this thread, at least as is thus far demonstrated in your false claims made in response posts to my attention, please don't bother continuing in your effort.
An atheist is fully able to deny God exists, but when they make purposefully misleading statements about the content of non-Christian sources that do prove there are non-Christian accounts of Jesus' existence in history, they're desperate. And pathetic. With no honor.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Everything in the gospels is pagan.

Bullet points:

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
• • They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
  • They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
  • They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
  • That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
  • By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
  • Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
  • They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
  • Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
  • Born of a virgin

add in abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice and you have Christianity.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier


also Zoroastrianism, the Persian religion that pre-dates Christianity has many of the christian beliefs that you mentioned like hellfire but also things that Jesus did teach like the war between good vs evil, the end of days, heaven, good people will be resurrected in the afterlife

After the Persian invasion of Judea these concepts begin showing up in the OT.

22:21

Yeah, none of the "bullet points" you've posted are actually reality.

I love that presentation. This pastor refutes unsubstantiated by actual proof in history atheist claims that Christianity is entirely pagan in the same mannerism as the atheists sarcasm attacks Christianity.

And this is perfect. Right around Christmas every year atheists, who exchange gifts because they're materialists and yet do so ON the day Christians recognize as Christ's date of birth. Even though his date of birth is not stated in scripture.
It refutes their claim that Christmas is entirely pagan.
Christ comes in handy once a year for the atheist. Presents!

 

[Jumi]

None of what you state there is true.

I actually read through a couple of the links. One of your links says:

The earliest complete copy of the New Testament is found in the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to 330-360 AD, or 345 AD median year. As Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, Christianity is left with a gap of 312 years in its scriptural evidences.

Another talks about

Shape-Shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text

Another states:

Early Images of the Crucifixion

Early depictions of the Passion of Christ tended to omit the crucifixion, and there are very few representations of it in the Early Christian and Early Byzantine period. The Basque Crucifixion was shown to be a modern fake created by Basque separatists; who's represented in the Alexamenos Graffito will never be certain, nor can it be dated with much certainty; and the fresco in a tomb on the Esquiline pre-dates the Christian period by several centuries. Several graffiti from Pompeii mention crucifixion but as a Roman insult or punishment (source). Although the Romans used crucifixion regularly, again in pre-Christian art it was very rarely depicted. There are very few images of crucifixion, and not all can be linked to Jesus' crucifixion.

So I'm still not convinced that these are the links you wanted to provide as my friendly reminder stated.

And the subsequent BING results sustain my statement and the keywords used.

Do you agree with the quotes I supplied from your link?

If you are incapable of being intellectually honest in this thread, at least as is thus far demonstrated in your false claims made in response posts to my attention, please don't bother continuing in your effort.

What ever bad things you wish to believe, that is certainly your right. If you want to be unfriendly so be it.

An atheist is fully able to deny God exists, but when they make purposefully misleading statements about the content of non-Christian sources that do prove there are non-Christian accounts of Jesus' existence in history, they're desperate. And pathetic. With no honor.

Ok, what have atheists and your beliefs about atheists have to do with this?

 

[Marcion]

In "Tantric circles" it is rumoured that the Guru or Master of (the Tantric) Jesus saved him from the crucifixion by using magic and sending a look-alike Jesus to be crucified instead of the real Jesus.
So this is similar to the Islamic idea (Muslims may have heard it from Tantrics at the time Islam was syncretically created).
I would never accept such an idea as fact, I think I would tentatively opt for no crucifixion at all but rather a syncretic projection coming from similar cults.

One thing is interesting though. I discovered a passage in the original gospel story (gMark) in which the allusive suggestion is given that Jesus may have escaped.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar14.pdf

Mark 14: 51-52 (around the capture of Jesus)

[50. And they all forsook him, and fled]
51. And there followed him a certain youth (neaniskos), having a linen cloth cast about his nakedness; and the young men (neaniskoi) laid hold on him.
52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

Mark 16: 5 (inside the tomb after the crucifixion)

5. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a youth (neaniskon) sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

The naked youth would then symbolize the real Jesus and his clothes would stand for the stand-in who is separated at the arrest and again joined with the real Jesus after the whole business is over.
This word neoniskos for youth is apparently only found in the New Testament in these two places.
These texts in Mark make no sense in the main story line. But they may have made sense for initiates who knew the real story behind the mythical one.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

I actually read through a couple of the links. One of your links says:



Another talks about


Another states:

This is why you're not credible. Don't feel bad, many atheists here pull the same stunt you do and should always be calle out on it.
Ready?
You go to all that trouble to find what you claim are in "my links". You copy and paste an alleged piece of something you claim you found at one of "your links/my links from BING", and you post it here. But, you don't bother to copy the source! The URL address of the site you claim you found in those links.
Therefore, not only is nothing that you claimed in your prior post about the BING link true, that which you attempt to claim you found in my BING links is credible because you have no proof!

While I made the effort using the excerpt you posted here and found it at, no surprise really , a Muslim website that attempts to what? Demean scriptures as pertains to the Bible.
It's entitled, "Muslim Prophets....."
Look familiar? Save for that bottom part, NOTE, that puts into proper context concerning the Codex in question state when discovered.
The Codex Sinaiticus, earliest complete New Testament Bible manuscript reveals a gap of 312 years from Jesus' Crucifixion.
The original, handwritten 27 books of the New Testament most likely disappeared within a few decades after being written. We are left with thousands of manuscripts, papyri and handwritten copies in many different languages.

The earliest complete copy of the New Testament is found in the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to 330-360 AD, or 345 AD median year. As Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, Christianity is left with a gap of 312 years in its scriptural evidences.

NOTE: Earlier Biblical Manuscripts than the Codex Sinaiticus are available (i.e. papyrus P52), but these are incomplete, fragmentary, and only have a few words or verses of the originals.

The rest of what you claim you found is not credible being the fist paste that you claim you found is already discredited as saying what you falsely claim of it.

As I stated, when you cannot participate with intellectual honesty, you're not qualified to make any claims against Christianity.
You prove you are not to be believed.

 

[metis]

There's no reason I know of not to believe the event took place. So I'll go along with it. "Yes."

.

Ditto for me.