Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

[Dawnofhope]

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.

In many respects it makes little difference whether the Christians or Muslims are right. As correctly stated by several posters on this thread we can not know with absolute certainty either way. What is important is our capacity to reflect constructively about known history and the sacred texts of the two largest world religions. We also need to be able to respectfully converse with those with very different beliefs from ourselves in our independent investigation of truth and know when to agree to disagree.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

That's an interesting take. So the Gospel accounts are mistaken?

 

[lukethethird]

That's an interesting take. So the Gospel accounts are mistaken?

The gospels are pure fiction although mythology is the correct term.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

The Gospel authors present a post-crucifixion narrative of Christ rising from the dead after three days, appearing to His disciples and then ascending to heaven at Pentecost (Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11). Baha'is see this as a theological/allegorical narrative rather than literal history.

 

[oldbadger]

That's an interesting take. So the Gospel accounts are mistaken?

G-Mark could be the most accurate. But adjustment by early Christians seems very very likely, just as Flavius Josephus' original account was almost certainly adjusted. Thar is easy to demonstrate

Early bibles mentioned Yeshua Barabbas as the perpetrator or supporter of a riot in or around the Temple, causing a death. Pilate would have enjoyed that, I think...he had continuous contention with the Temple and Priesthood, and may well have wanted to save Jesus (Yeshua) for his own ends. Both Yeshuas could have been one and the same man.

But Yeshua's arrival in Galilee after all that does surely support his survival?

 

[oldbadger]

The Gospel authors present a post-crucifixion narrative of Christ rising from the dead after three days, appearing to His disciples and then ascending to heaven at Pentecost (Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11). Baha'is see this as a theological/allegorical narrative rather than literal history.

Sure they do......... but it never had to be a resurrection!
That could have been spirited up later on...... wishful thoughts to support a mission.....
Joseph of A was clearly close with Pilate and saw him before he came with officers to retrieve the crucified convict. Only the other two were dispatched by leg breaking and thus respiratory failure (?)

Hey! ...... that stab wound in the lower side which released fluids........ could that have saved a convict's life whose lungs had filled with fluids? It usually took 2-3 days for a perfect crucifixion to result in death, the Romans were good at torture execution punishments, and so a few hours on a cross needed bust legs to end in death.

Flavius Josephus once succeeded in having three of his old comrades taken down from crucifixion, one of the men surviving, so the taking down of survivors is recorded. If you would like chapter and verse I can dig it out of my main system.

Whether Jesus survived the cross or avoided it altogether, one of those easily fits the resulting story, although the nail wounds rather tend to fit with the taking down and surviving angle. People say that nailed hands was rubbish because the hands would tear through and the body fall, but where convicts were lashed to a cross and the hands pinned to stop the convict from struggling free..... no problem.

 

[Jumi]

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?

How silly, I'm still not an atheist. But I guess that goes to show just how much you hate atheists. Don't let it blind you, I'm not an atheist.

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.

I can post them if you want, they are all first page links on your BING link. If I do, will you apologize for being pointlessly rude?

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!

Of course I have proof. If I show it will you regret or will you try to muddy the waters one more time.

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.

I didn't claim it, I merely pointed out that these are from your BING search. First page results. Why I told you that you probably shouldn't be using that BING link you used, because it disagrees with you.

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.

You're very rude, if nothing else.

By the way, making dishonest "funny" ratings is forbidden on the forum. Though from what you posted now I can guess you don't care much for friendliness or rules.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I detect unkind remarks being made on this thread bordering on personal insults.

Just a reminder of the RF Mission statement

RF MISSION STATEMENT

As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another.

and rules

RF Rules

Specifically:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

In the words of Rodney King

"Why can't we all just get along"

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

How silly, I'm still not an atheist. But I guess that goes to show just how much you hate atheists. Don't let it blind you, I'm not an atheist.

I checked your profile after reading you a bit.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Profile Page Start a Conversation Follow Ignore
Member Since:
Nov 25, 2014
Messages:
9,159
Featured Threads:
5
Ratings Received:
+4,918

Since there was no indication of a faith path, I simply judged your offensive mocking demeanor toward the Christian faith and Christians, and this Christian, as that of one who is not a believer in Christ.
As to the rest of your remarks, including the jugement icons I've attached to your posts, they're not against the rules or they wouldn't be an option.

Offensive people who have issues with Christians very often are inspired to pursue that track because they think Christians are to be doormats. Per the scriptures.
It isn't rude to rebuke someone who has no respect for the faith they constantly seek to mock and misrepresent. It's righteous judgment that such fallen behavior be rebuked and corrected.

If that which is on the World Wide Web trolling religious forums doesn't appreciate being rebuked, they should stop being repulsive.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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

What is interesting here is in which you do not accept or are unwilling to accept is that probability is not on trial here. It is the verifiable evidence of the probable. You see, it is probable that a historical Moses existed and spoke to God directly through a burning bush. It is probable that Enoch was taken up by God to become the Metatron. It is even probable that Muhammad became a prophet after meditating in the cave of Hira. It is also probable that Jesus was crucified (or not) and ascended to heaven. It is even probable that as I'm typing this I have a halo around my head with a swinging devil's tail. Fact is this amounts to faith not certainty nor objective truth.

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.

We cannot prove without a body, that such and such discovered body is Alexander the Great considering the decomposition factor but we can say through historical writings that have verifiable proof that a character named "Alexander The Great" existed. We have verifiable proof that a historical character named Muhammad existed. We have verifiable proof that a historical character named Genghis Khan existed (not to mention genetic evidence). We even have some proof that a historical Jesus existed. The point is it remains to be seen that he was actually crucified because there is no tangible evidence outside the Bible. Sure we can have nails and a wooden cross, but without anything to cross reference and attach to a body (no pun intended) of Jesus it remains to be speculative although believed through the proxy of religious faith.

There are all kinds of probabilities in human theory. We see this all the time in astrophysics, but to substantiate probability we need proof that such events actually occurred otherwise it is merely a matter of faith which none of you who chose yes can prove with demonstrable evidence. What is the probability that the Christian narrative is wrong? What if Jesus was never crucified? If we contend that the Islamic doctrine to be true then that would make the case. But arguing about probabilities takes this discussion nowhere except you have your belief and I have mind but its worthless arguing over this fact because you have no tangible proof except probabilities and probabilities do not make things as fact. So I leave with this:


Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe without seeing." John 20:29

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In many respects it makes little difference whether the Christians or Muslims are right. As correctly stated by several posters on this thread we can not know with absolute certainty either way. What is important is our capacity to reflect constructively about known history and the sacred texts of the two largest world religions. We also need to be able to respectfully converse with those with very different beliefs from ourselves in our independent investigation of truth and know when to agree to disagree.

Regardless, both Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus went up alive, and He is still alive, and one day, He comes down. Both agree Muhammad is dead now.
For a Christian, this denotes superiority of Christ. Ours is alive, yours is dead.

 

[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.

The question arises why this part of the gospel is missing in the three newer versions of this gospel story. Did the authors think the text to be odd and did they leave it out on purpose? Or was it perhaps added later to gMark and did they never see it? The present ending of gMark has after all also been edited considerably.

The founder of the Anthroposophy movement Rudolf Steiner had a somewhat similar explanation of these two sections in gMark (a bit more esoteric though).
Spiritual Science is Practical: The Son of Man & the Cosmic Christ by Oskar Kuerten

 

[Jumi]

I checked your profile after reading you a bit.

Where you've put eclectic Christian and I've put secular theist. I had Pure Monotheist on there until some time ago, when people started confusing me for Muslim then I changed it. It's quite on a prominent spot, isn't it? I've told my story of becoming a monotheist while being a member of this forum. You can always ask if in doubt, it beats guesswork. I've had my run ins with atheists who've similarly jumped to conclusions about me. So being theist or atheist doesn't say much to me about people's behavior here...

Since there was no indication of a faith path, I simply judged your offensive mocking demeanor toward the Christian faith and Christians, and this Christian, as that of one who is not a believer in Christ.

The way I see it, being Christian isn't an excuse to go out swinging against anyone who doesn't seem like Christian. Well at least that's how it was taught in school in my country during mandatory religious classes.

I don't see where I've been "offensively mocking" Christian faith or Christians in general. I think the one that comes closest to mocking that I've posted has been against Stalinist communism. Of course you can refresh my memory and bring up things where you see me acting like you've described me.

If you want to know I have nothing against Christians or Christian faiths. Perhaps you had a bad day today. Well I'm not Christian and I know you don't see any sin on your part attacking non-Christian theists, so I won't be unrealistic and expect any apologies.

Do you still want the links that were on the first page of the bing results or are we ready to move on?

 

[Kenny]

Jesus didn't die from the effects of the cross. His body died due to the spear piercing his lungs and heart when the Roman soldier checked to see if he was yet dead.

I would disagree... the separation of the red corpuscles can happen on two different reasons:

1) When the heart stops “stirring ” the blood, the cells start to settle out. That leaves a dark red gunk at the lowest point, and a light colored fluid above that.
2) The prolonged rapid heartbeat resulting from hypovolemic shock can cause fluid to gather in the area around the heart. This is called pericardial effusion.

However, I wouldn't say it was the effects of the cross either as both thieves were still alive but rather the effects of the sin of humanity in Christian understanding.

 

[CG Didymus]

You make it sound as if I'm being deceptive in some way. I'm a Baha'i. In regards the OP question, Baha'is believe Jesus was crucified as recorded in the Gospels. We see the Quranic verses as symbolic.

I do think somebody is being deceptive. It very well could be the gospel writers. Since you say they weren't necessarily eye-witnesses, then where did they get the information for their gospels? From the stories and the traditions that had developed after the death of Jesus? What do you think? I think probably so.

Were these stories accurate? You and I think that some of the things didn't really happen, especially the dead coming out of their graves. You call those things "symbolic". I call them embellishments. You say that what happened after Jesus died is all symbolic.... that he never physically came back to life. I say if he didn't come back to life then Christians are being deceptive.

Now Baha'is could be being deceptive too. If the stories weren't meant to be symbolic, but were meant to be taken literally, then the Baha'is would be saying something to deceive people also. They would be trying to cover for the embellishments and give them an "honest" and even spiritual reason for being mixed into the actual historical events.

But, for me, to think that they just added some mystical stuff in their stories of Jesus to make him bigger and greater than he really was. Born of a Virgin, walked on water, healed the lepers, brought people back to life... including himself, that's one powerful, connected to God kind of guy. But then, if all he did was preach for people to do good and then got killed for it? I don't think Christianity would have gotten too far. Even later with Constantine, it take a grand miracle to get him to convert to believe in Jesus. Did that happen or was it a symbolic thing? I think all the miracles were told to people as true and were expected to be believed as true... but could easily by legend and myth.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Regardless, both Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus went up alive, and He is still alive, and one day, He comes down. Both agree Muhammad is dead now.
For a Christian, this denotes superiority of Christ. Ours is alive, yours is dead.

Not necessarily if you take the Islamic perspective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I do think somebody is being deceptive. It very well could be the gospel writers. Since you say they weren't necessarily eye-witnesses, then where did they get the information for their gospels? From the stories and the traditions that had developed after the death of Jesus? What do you think? I think probably so.

I don't think the gospel writers were too concerned about historic as opposed to religious truth. It was all true and there wasn't a distinction between what's literally true and what's not. The distinction is likely a modern one, probably exemplified by religious fundamentalists who become insistent on literal truth. Its then set up a false dichotomy of truth compared to deceit based on historicity.

The first Gospel (Mark) was probably written about 66 - 70 AD. Oral traditions that originated with the apostles and continued by second and third generation Christians would have had an enormous influence some 35 years after Christ's crucifixion.

Were these stories accurate? You and I think that some of the things didn't really happen, especially the dead coming out of their graves. You call those things "symbolic". I call them embellishments. You say that what happened after Jesus died is all symbolic.... that he never physically came back to life. I say if he didn't come back to life then Christians are being deceptive.

It would be unfair to call the early Christians deceptive as they wrote religious not historic texts. It would be unfair to call fundamentalist Christians deceptive as they sincerely believe the gospels are historically true. We are all entitled to our opinions. Just because our views are wrong or misguided, does not mean we are being deceptive, if we are sincere. When words like liar and deceptive become introduced to interfaith discussion its best to give it a break.

Now Baha'is could be being deceptive too. If the stories weren't meant to be symbolic, but were meant to be taken literally, then the Baha'is would be saying something to deceive people also. They would be trying to cover for the embellishments and give them an "honest" and even spiritual reason for being mixed into the actual historical events.

I believe the Gospels are true and authentic. That truth and authenticity is in their religious not historic truth. I'm open and clear about what I believe.

But, for me, to think that they just added some mystical stuff in their stories of Jesus to make him bigger and greater than he really was. Born of a Virgin, walked on water, healed the lepers, brought people back to life... including himself, that's one powerful, connected to God kind of guy. But then, if all he did was preach for people to do good and then got killed for it? I don't think Christianity would have gotten too far. Even later with Constantine, it take a grand miracle to get him to convert to believe in Jesus. Did that happen or was it a symbolic thing? I think all the miracles were told to people as true and were expected to be believed as true... but could easily by legend and myth.

Although I don't see it that way, you are entitled to your sincere belief as I am. My position is somewhere between the fundamentalists and what you believe. Its hard to find agreement with even basic historic events like the crucifixion as this thread clearly demonstrates, let alone the miracles.

 

[CG Didymus]

Regardless, both Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus went up alive, and He is still alive, and one day, He comes down. Both agree Muhammad is dead now.
For a Christian, this denotes superiority of Christ. Ours is alive, yours is dead.

And Baha'is believe all of them, including theirs, Baha'u'llah, are dead physically and went up in spirit. But I don't think that's what the NT teaches nor what most Christians teach. So, if the Baha'is are correct, then the Christians are superior at all. They are wrong, dead wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think the gospel writers were too concerned about historic as opposed to religious truth. It was all true and there wasn't a distinction between what's literally true and what's not. The distinction is likely a modern one, probably exemplified by religious fundamentalists who become insistent on literal truth. Its then set up a false dichotomy of truth compared to deceit based on historicity.

The first Gospel (Mark) was probably written about 66 - 70 AD. Oral traditions that originated with the apostles and continued by second and third generation Christians would have had an enormous influence some 35 years after Christ's crucifixion.



It would be unfair to call the early Christians deceptive as they wrote religious not historic texts. It would be unfair to call fundamentalist Christians deceptive as they sincerely believe the gospels are historically true. We are all entitled to our opinions. Just because our views are wrong or misguided, does not mean we are being deceptive, if we are sincere. When words like liar and deceptive become introduced to interfaith discussion its best to give it a break.



I believe the Gospels are true and authentic. That truth and authenticity is in their religious not historic truth. I'm open and clear about what I believe.



Although I don't see it that way, you are entitled to your sincere belief as I am. My position is somewhere between the fundamentalists and what you believe. Its hard to find agreement with even basic historic events like the crucifixion as this thread clearly demonstrates, let alone the miracles.

What would be wrong with it being some historical things being embellished? Who would have followed Jesus without people telling them that he calmed a storm, healed the lame, walked on water? But why would Christians tell people symbolic, fictional, mythical story and not tell them that the things in the story are all historically true? That's the lie, that's the deception or... maybe those things did happen? Then the lie and the deception are the ones that teach those things didn't happen.

There was a time when people weren't "entitled" to their opinions. Christians killed those they thought were heretics. Even Baha'is don't let Baha'is have opinions that go against Baha'i authority and their covenant things. And Baha'is I think have said things like people of other religions following superstitions and traditions of men. So where is the lovey dovey interfaith feelings in that? No, we all have been taught religious things and a lot of them are wrong. And, there is deception that goes on in religion. You know the main one. People talking about it but not living it themselves. And, since nobody is perfect, does anybody truly live it? Which leads to another religious deception. People that are fooling themselves on how "spiritual" or "religious they are.

 

[Marcion]

I believe the Gospels are true and authentic. That truth and authenticity is in their religious not historic truth. I'm open and clear about what I believe.

What do you actually mean by "truth and authenticity" if you (rightfully) recognize that the gospel story is not historic truth? Why do you accept the Christian idea of apostolic succession if the source of this idea comes only from your "not historic" New Testament? Of course you are free to believe whatever you like, but to me it doesn't feel like you are being consistent. Perhaps this is because you partially follow the ideas on this subject coming from the founder of the Bahai religion?

I would never call any religion a lie, but if most of it is made up you have to be very careful about what you are still prepared to accept as having a historic base. So what would an "untrue non-authentic" New Testament have looked like in your eyes?