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

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

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

Was Jesus Crucified?

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Having studied Roman history of the time i would say a Yeshua was crucified. However to me that crucifixion shows he was not as described in the bible. Rome had several methods of execution for different crimes, crucifixion being just one and reserved for traitors and terrorists to Rome.

Would love to read the history here.
 

Dimi95

Χριστός ἀνέστη
Here is something interesting to read

"If the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe, then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the Roman Empire’s population, just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

These facts of secular history, preserved today in the records of the Roman Senate, are compelling and empirical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was well known by the Romans.It is irrelevant that the Romans didn’t believe the resurrection had taken place. What we should pay attention to is the fact that Roman Leaders understood that Christians believed this doctrine so fervently that they would rather die than deny it had taken place.

While it is possible that a person could die for a lie, in the case of Christianity, those who believed Jesus had risen from the dead, had credible evidence to support their fervent belief. Christians of that time had something in their possession that others who died for their beliefs did not have; a written record from eyewitnesses who stated they had seen Jesus crucified and then alive three days later.

“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-8

There is no possibility that 5 million Christians would willingly go to their death, if they were not convinced that Jesus had risen.It was this written and disseminated eyewitness testimony that every Christian knew, believed, and lived to their death, that proves Jesus had risen from the dead. Even without scientific evidence that many demand for the resurrection, there is an even greater and more compelling evidence that proves many events of antiquity: How people lived their lives after an event is said to have taken place. Five million Christians who would rather die than deny Jesus’ resurrection, is extraordinary evidence that it really happened.

This record also contains the testimony of the most astute Pharisee in Israel, Saul of Tarsus, who stated in 14 letters that He had seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes: “Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes?” ~1 Corinthians 9:1.

It is certain that Roman leaders did not believe in the resurrection, but they certainly accepted that Christians believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. It is this record that remains in the Roman Senate today that is compelling evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

These facts were established by the writings of Roman Historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, as they described the resurrection as a terrible superstition that would endanger the Roman Empire. It was for this reason that we have an incredible record that Jesus had risen from the dead because history records that over five million Christians went to their death during a 250-year period of history under ten Roman Emperors, rather than recant and deny Jesus’ resurrection had taken place.

The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of piety, but as a 'superstition.' Pliny, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a 'superstition taken to extravagant lengths.' Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it 'a deadly superstition,' and the historian Suetonius called Christians 'a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition.'

Myths and legends which claim that a person had risen from the dead cannot survive 2,000 years of scrutiny if they are not true.This has never happened during man’s history, and for good reason. People want to know the truth, and they will invest themselves in seeking to discover whether events are genuine or not.

It was because Christians believed in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that ten Roman Emperors gave their orders to execute any Christian who would not repent of their Christianity and worship a Roman god.Since Christians maintained such a firm belief that Jesus had risen from the dead because it is firmly established in their scriptures, they would not deny Jesus.

History records that early Christians were persecuted and killed by the Roman government for a period of 250 years,beginning with Nero in 54 A.D. and ending with Diocletian in 313 A.D.

Nero (54-68):
Paul was beheaded; Peter was crucified upside down.
Domitian (95-96): John was exiled to Patmos, and wrote the Book of Revelation.
Trajan (104-117): Ignatius was burned at the stake.
Marcus Aurelius (161-180): Polycarp was martyred.
Septimus Severus (200-211): He executed Irenaeus.
Maximinus (235-237): He killed Ursula and Hippolytus.
Decius (249-251)
Valerian (257-260)
Aurelian (270-275)
Diocletian (303-313): He killed more Christians than all before him.

The most reliable source for the true facts of this persecution of Christians is from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. During this period of history, John Foxe estimated that five million Christians were killed for simply believing in Jesus as their Savior.

Documentation For The Reliable Testimony of John Foxe
Warren Wooden wrote in 1983
:

“Foxe’s reputation as a careful and accurate, albeit partisan, historian especially of the events of his own day, has been cleansed and restored with the result that modern historians no longer feel constrained to apologize automatically for evidence and examples drawn from the ‘’Acts and Monuments’’⁠

Noted English Historian, Patrick Collinson, acknowledged Foxe’s work as a valid historian, and said:

“John Foxe was the greatest [English] historian of his age….and the greatest revisionist ever.”⁠

J. F. Mozley stated that John Foxe “preserved a high standard of honesty… and proclaims the honest man, sincere seeker after truth.”⁠

Mozley quotes the words of John Foxe on page 168 of his book “Actes and Monuments”:

“What the intent and custom is of the papists to do, I cannot tell: for mine own I will say, although many other vices I have, yet from this one I have always of nature abhorred, wittingly to deceive any man or child, so near as I could, much less the church of God, whom I with all my heart do reverence, and with fear obey.”⁠

The 2009 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica describes the work of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs as:

“Factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere.”

The false charges that John Foxe did not accurately record the actual deaths of the early believers of Jesus is further impeached by those who have investigated this early Christian author.

Dr. Herbert Samworth writes:

“There is probably no other book that accomplished the repudiation of the Roman Church in England as did the Acts and Monuments. However, I believe that a strong case can be made that this was not the original intent of the work. Certainly it possesses an anti-Roman bias but this was because of the intolerance and cruelty imposed on those who disagreed with its teachings. However, Foxe did not limit his disagreement against temporal forms of punishing heresy to the Roman Church. He was totally opposed to any form of temporal punishment against false teaching whether it was practiced by the Roman Church or the Protestant Church.

However, if we are to understand this we must know something of the man himself. Foxe matriculated in 1534 and graduated from Oxford University around four years later because he became master in 1539. There was always one consistent thing about John Foxe and it was his pronounced Protestantism. Indeed, his faithfulness to its teaching cost him his fellowship because it required ordination to hold it. However, to be ordained meant to take the vow of celibacy and Foxe remained unconvinced that this was what the Word of God taught even though the Church had made it a sacrament.

Not only was Foxe a person of integrity he was also known for his unwillingness to seek preferment in the church for the sake of material gain. The case of those who used the religious changes in England under Henry VIII and Edward VI to enrich themselves is not pleasant to read."

source: Historical Evidence That Proves The Resurrection Of Jesus
 

Darren0803

Member
Would love to read the history here.
Yes I agree that Rome implemented crucifixion for Insurrection. Jesus was tried under Pontius pilot and the Jews namely the high priest seem to have an influence. The fact that they cried out crucify him give rise to the event.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Why were the teachings of Jesus rejected and why was he put to death? There is no record anywhere of Jesus having a conflict with the Romans.

IMOP Open source from the Urantia Book makes sense:


. JEWS AND GENTILES​

121:7.1 By the times of Jesus the Jews had arrived at a settled concept of their origin, history, and destiny. They had built up a rigid wall of separation between themselves and the gentile world; they looked upon all gentile ways with utter contempt. They worshiped the letter of the law and indulged a form of self-righteousness based upon the false pride of descent. They had formed preconceived notions regarding the promised Messiah, and most of these expectations envisaged a Messiah who would come as a part of their national and racial history. To the Hebrews of those days Jewish theology was irrevocably settled, forever fixed.

121:7.2 The teachings and practices of Jesus regarding tolerance and kindness ran counter to the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward other peoples whom they considered heathen. For generations the Jews had nourished an attitude toward the outside world which made it impossible for them to accept the Master's teachings about the spiritual brotherhood of man. They were unwilling to share Yahweh on equal terms with the gentiles and were likewise unwilling to accept as the Son of God one who taught such new and strange doctrines.

121:7.3 The scribes, the Pharisees, and the priesthood held the Jews in a terrible bondage of ritualism and legalism, a bondage far more real than that of the Roman political rule. The Jews of Jesus' time were not only held in subjugation to the law but were equally bound by the slavish demands of the traditions, which involved and invaded every domain of personal and social life. These minute regulations of conduct pursued and dominated every loyal Jew, and it is not strange that they promptly rejected one of their number who presumed to ignore their sacred traditions, and who dared to flout their long-honored regulations of social conduct. They could hardly regard with favor the teachings of one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas which they regarded as having been ordained by Father Abraham himself. Moses had given them their law and they would not compromise. *

121:7.4 By the time of the first century after Christ the spoken interpretation of the law by the recognized teachers, the scribes, had become a higher authority than the written law itself. And all this made it easier for certain religious leaders of the Jews to array the people against the acceptance of a new gospel.

121:7.5 These circumstances rendered it impossible for the Jews to fulfill their divine destiny as messengers of the new gospel of religious freedom and spiritual liberty. They could not break the fetters of tradition. Jeremiah had told of the "law to be written in men's hearts," Ezekiel had spoken of a "new spirit to live in man's soul." and the Psalmist had prayed that God would "create a clean heart within and renew a right spirit." But when the Jewish religion of good works and slavery to law fell victim to the stagnation of traditionalistic inertia, the motion of religious evolution passed westward to the European peoples.

121:7.6 And so a different people were called upon to carry an advancing theology to the world, a system of teaching embodying the philosophy of the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the morality of the Hebrews, and the gospel of personality sanctity and spiritual liberty formulated by Paul and based on the teachings of Jesus.

121:7.7 Paul's cult of Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life. Paul's doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus' teachings but also by Plato and Philo. In ethics he was inspired not only by Christ but also by the Stoics.

121:7.8 The gospel of Jesus, as it was embodied in Paul's cult of Antioch, Christianity, became blended with the following teachings:

1. The philosophic reasoning of the Greek proselytes to Judaism, including some of their concepts of the eternal life.
2. The appealing teachings of the prevailing mystery cults, especially the Mithraic doctrines of redemption, atonement, and salvation by the sacrifice made by some god.
3. The sturdy morality of the established Jewish religion.
121:7.12 The Mediterranean Roman Empire, the Parthian kingdom, and the adjacent peoples of Jesus' time all held crude and primitive ideas regarding the geography of the world, astronomy, health, and disease; and naturally they were amazed by the new and startling pronouncements of the carpenter of Nazareth. The ideas of spirit possession, good and bad, applied not merely to human beings, but every rock and tree was viewed by many as being spirit possessed. This was an enchanted age, and everybody believed in miracles as commonplace occurrences.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
According to chapter 4 of the Qur'an Jesus was not killed or crucified as follows:
Qur'an 4:157 And for their saying, "Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Isa, son (of) Maryam, (the) Messenger (of) Allah." And not they killed him and not they crucified him but it was made to appear (so) to them. And indeed, those who differ in it (are) surely in doubt about it. Not for them about it [of] (any) knowledge except (the) following (of) assumption. And not they killed him, certainly.
(Translation - Word for Word: Dr. Shehnaz Shaikh, Ms. Kauser Katri, and more)
Firstly according to verse 157 the Jews were boosting about killing Jesus by crucifixion, then Allah claims they did not kill him or crucify Jesus.
Secondly it was made to appear to the Jews that Jesus was killed and crucified.
Thirdly the Qur'an claims those differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus are in doubt, have no knowledge of the event, and are following assumptions.
Fifthly the Qur'an clarifies the Jews did not kill Jesus.
Question:
Who is differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus, who is in doubt, and who is making assumptions over the event?
Josephus wrote about Jesus in the first century CE. Muhammad wrote six centuries later. Obviously the record closer to the event is going to be more accurate.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
According to chapter 4 of the Qur'an Jesus was not killed or crucified as follows:
Qur'an 4:157 And for their saying, "Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Isa, son (of) Maryam, (the) Messenger (of) Allah." And not they killed him and not they crucified him but it was made to appear (so) to them. And indeed, those who differ in it (are) surely in doubt about it. Not for them about it [of] (any) knowledge except (the) following (of) assumption. And not they killed him, certainly.
(Translation - Word for Word: Dr. Shehnaz Shaikh, Ms. Kauser Katri, and more)
Firstly according to verse 157 the Jews were boosting about killing Jesus by crucifixion, then Allah claims they did not kill him or crucify Jesus.
Secondly it was made to appear to the Jews that Jesus was killed and crucified.
Thirdly the Qur'an claims those differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus are in doubt, have no knowledge of the event, and are following assumptions.
Fifthly the Qur'an clarifies the Jews did not kill Jesus.
Question:
Who is differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus, who is in doubt, and who is making assumptions over the event?
One interpretation is Jesus was crucified, but did not die on the cross as opposed to Christian interpretation Jesus died on the Cross, but not really died, and was Resurrected. Two versions that Jesus did not in reality die when eh was crucified.
 
On the one hand we have early documentation, within a century of the event:
  • Mark's gospel, written around AD 70 and reported on by Papias around 120.
  • Josephus, writing in the 90s
  • Tacitus, writing in 116.
On the other hand, we have the denial of the crucifixion in the Quran, written 600 years later. Any trained historian will prefer the multiple earlier documents.

Obviously a Muslim will accept the Quran, regarding it as the word of God. And obviously a non-Muslim will regard the Quranic account as the sort of blunder that shows that the Quran cannot be the word of God.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Hi Darren and welcome to RF.

According to Ahmadi Islam ,
"Jesus is thought to have died a natural death in India.[1][2][3][4] Jesus lived to old age and later died in Srinagar, Kashmir, and his tomb is presently located at the Roza Bal shrine.[1][2][3]"

Full article at Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam - Wikipedia

Meher Baba indicated much the same thing.

There is one secret about Jesus which the Christians do not know. When Jesus was crucified, he did not die. He entered the state of Nirvikalp Samadhi (the I-am-God state without bodily consciousness).

On the third day, he again became conscious of his body, and he traveled secretly in disguise eastward (with some apostles) to India. This was called Jesus' resurrection.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
On the one hand we have early documentation, within a century of the event:
  • Mark's gospel, written around AD 70 and reported on by Papias around 120.
  • Josephus, writing in the 90s
  • Tacitus, writing in 116.
On the other hand, we have the denial of the crucifixion in the Quran, written 600 years later. Any trained historian will prefer the multiple earlier documents.

Obviously a Muslim will accept the Quran, regarding it as the word of God. And obviously a non-Muslim will regard the Quranic account as the sort of blunder that shows that the Quran cannot be the word of God.
The problem with the sources you cite for anything concerning the life of Jesus is either third person references, or lack documentation as early as you claim. No Mark's gospel cannot be dated as is to 70 AD or his authorship. You clearly over state the provenance of the claims for the gospel and other sources.

The following is a good source describing the historical weaknesses of Papias records.


Is the Gospel of Mark in Papias Our Gospel of Mark?​

March 4, 2023

Can we trust a source such as Papias on the question of whether our Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew and that our Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter?

It is interesting that Papias tells a story that is recorded in our Matthew but tells it so completely differently that it appears he doesn’t know Matthew’s version. And so when he says Matthew wrote Matthew, is he referring to *our* Matthew, or to some other book? (Recall, the Gospel he refers to is a collection of Jesus’ sayings in Hebrew; the Gospel of Matthew that *we* have is a narrative, not a collection of sayings, and was written in Greek.) If he *is* referring to our Matthew, why doesn’t he see it as an authoritative account?
Here’s the conflicting story. It involves the death of Judas. And it’s quite a story! Here is my translation of it from my edition, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classical Library, vol. 1; 2004).

But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon – not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body.
And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding their nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.” [Apollinaris of Laodicea]
You gotta love it. But, well, what does one make of it? Matthew’s Gospel – the one we have in the New Testament – also describes the death of Judas. But it is not like this at all. According to Matthew, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5). If Papias saw Matthew’s Gospel as an eyewitness authority to the life of Jesus and those around him, why didn’t he accept its version of Judas’s death?
Another alternative is.

that when Papias describes a Gospel written by Matthew, he isn’t actually referring to the Matthew that we now have. Recall: Papias says two things about the “Matthew” he is familiar with: it consists only of sayings of Jesus and it was composed in Hebrew. Neither is true of our Matthew, which does have sayings of Jesus, but is mainly composed of stories about Jesus. Moreover, it was not composed in Hebrew but in Greek.[1]

It is possible, of course, that like other early Christian scholars, Papias thought Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew when it was not. But it is also possible that these later writers thought Matthew was written in Hebrew because they knew about Papias’s comment and thought he was referring to our Gospel. But he appears not to be: Matthew is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings; and in the only place that Papias’s comments overlap with (our) Matthew’s account (the death of Judas), he doesn’t appear to know (our) Matthew.
If Papias was not talking about our Matthew, was he talking about our Mark? As Papias’s quotation about Mark that I cited yesterday indicates, he considered “his” Mark to be problematic because of its disorderly arrangement: that’s why he says that the preaching of Peter was not given “in order.” But that somewhat negative remark in itself is odd, because he doesn’t make the same comment about Matthew, even though the narrative outline of our Matthew is pretty much the same as our Mark – with additional materials added in.
Apart from that, Papias indicates that Mark’s Gospel gives an exhaustive account of everything Peter preached and that it gives it without changing a thing. The reality is that there is no way that anyone could think that the Gospel of Mark in our Bibles today gives a full account of Peter’s knowledge of Jesus. Our Gospel of Mark takes about two hours to read. Are we to think that after spending months (years?) with Jesus, Peter had no more than two hours’ worth of memories?
Of course it may be that Papias is exaggerating for effect. But even so, since he does not appear to be referring to the book we call Matthew, why should we think that he is referring to the book we call Mark? And that, therefore (as Papias indicates) Mark’s Gospel is actually a transcription of Peter’s version of what Jesus said and did?
Despite repeated attempts over the centuries by readers to show that Mark’s Gospel is “Peter’s perspective,” the reality is that if you simply read it without any preconceptions, there is nothing about the book that would make you think, “Oh, this is how Peter saw it all.” Quite the contrary – not only does Peter come off as a bumbling, foot-in-the-mouth, and unfaithful follower of Jesus in Mark (see Mark 8:27-32; 9:5-6; 14:27-31), but there are all sorts of stories – the vast majority – that have nothing to do with Peter or that betray anything like a Petrine voice.
There is, though, a still further and even more compelling reason for doubting that we can trust Papias on the authorship of the Gospels. It is that that we cannot really trust him on much of anything. That may sound harsh, but remember that even the early Christians did not appreciate his work very much and the one comment we have about him personally from an educated church father is that he was remarkably unintelligent.

Read on further details. . .
 
A quick look at the material you quote — I'm not interested enough in Christianity to read it all — reveals some errors. Papias didn't describe a "gospel written by Matthew". He wrote that Mark wrote a biography of Jesus and Matthew published a collection of the sayings of Jesus in the original language, which have been translated (sc. into Greek). And, of course, the original language referred to by Papias would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew. Then there is the claim that Mark cannot be recounting the reminiscences of Peter because Peter comes across badly. So old men never tell the truth about themselves and their failings?
 

nick.f

New Member
Apostle Paul, 1st Corinthians:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

God created human with free will, He didn't create... robots. When the Bible says he created man to his own image and icon one thing it means is that he has absolute freedom to act, to believe or not, to do the good or the bad in his life. Many people say why is all this suffering in the world if there is a god and he is all powerfull. God put man in paradise, there wasn't any suffering. But, God will never ever violate the freedom of man no matter what. That is one reason there will not be any solid proof like some people ask for in this forum. If God presented proof like that he would force humans to believe and worship him in a way. He wants people to be humble. Somewhere it says that knowledge makes humans proud, he wants humans to be humble. If you are humble and follow some comands he will present the proof.
There are many miracles made by the cross in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it doesn't work like a magical item, you must be humble, leave your brain, your cosmic knowledge, your EGO in general out of the way and believe correctly. Believe means in things you don't have solid evidence for. Show trust in other peoples teachings.
I have read a story about someone who when he was three years old his grandfather who was a sailor for some reason took him and put him at a Buddhist monastery in Tibet. There they taught him many magical, in reality daemonic things, he had lots of magical power. One day he was back in Greece and he met a simple priest of the Greek Orthodox Church. That priest asked for a glass of water and that "magician" wanted to show off that his faith and power was greater than christianity and asked from a spirit (a demon) to bring the water. Indeed, a glass of water came from the kitchen and even through a closed door. The priest said to the magician, good, now take this item and do the same. The item was a small cheep croos made of wood. The magician asked the spirit again to bring the water many times but nothing happened. It was even one of the greatest demons, yet he appeared in front of them trembling and looking the other way from the cross. That demon told the magician trembling with fear please throw away that thing you hold in your hand. He couldn't even say the word cross. If Jesus wasn't God and wasn't crucified why did this happen?
That priest might not be able to take part in deep theological discussions but he was humble and had lots of FAITH, not knowledge that might make him proud.

If someone wants proof there is not proof that might satisfy someone's curiosity, you have trust and believe what the Church says and God will help you see. Like the fact that God became human and lived among us. There are many MANY books about that fact at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church, yet there are some people who had vast and deep knowledge and wrote a lot, still they call it The Hidden Mystery. Meaning human's and even angels' brain and mind is limited and no matter what God reveals to us we will never will be able to understand what and how it happened. We can only be happy and grateful to God and accept whatever He reveals and we can understand up to a point.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Apostle Paul, 1st Corinthians:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

God created human with free will, He didn't create... robots. When the Bible says he created man to his own image and icon one thing it means is that he has absolute freedom to act, to believe or not, to do the good or the bad in his life. Many people say why is all this suffering in the world if there is a god and he is all powerfull. God put man in paradise, there wasn't any suffering. But, God will never ever violate the freedom of man no matter what. That is one reason there will not be any solid proof like some people ask for in this forum. If God presented proof like that he would force humans to believe and worship him in a way. He wants people to be humble. Somewhere it says that knowledge makes humans proud, he wants humans to be humble. If you are humble and follow some comands he will present the proof.
There are many miracles made by the cross in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it doesn't work like a magical item, you must be humble, leave your brain, your cosmic knowledge, your EGO in general out of the way and believe correctly. Believe means in things you don't have solid evidence for. Show trust in other peoples teachings.
I have read a story about someone who when he was three years old his grandfather who was a sailor for some reason took him and put him at a Buddhist monastery in Tibet. There they taught him many magical, in reality daemonic things, he had lots of magical power. One day he was back in Greece and he met a simple priest of the Greek Orthodox Church. That priest asked for a glass of water and that "magician" wanted to show off that his faith and power was greater than christianity and asked from a spirit (a demon) to bring the water. Indeed, a glass of water came from the kitchen and even through a closed door. The priest said to the magician, good, now take this item and do the same. The item was a small cheep croos made of wood. The magician asked the spirit again to bring the water many times but nothing happened. It was even one of the greatest demons, yet he appeared in front of them trembling and looking the other way from the cross. That demon told the magician trembling with fear please throw away that thing you hold in your hand. He couldn't even say the word cross. If Jesus wasn't God and wasn't crucified why did this happen?
That priest might not be able to take part in deep theological discussions but he was humble and had lots of FAITH, not knowledge that might make him proud.

If someone wants proof there is not proof that might satisfy someone's curiosity, you have trust and believe what the Church says and God will help you see. Like the fact that God became human and lived among us. There are many MANY books about that fact at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church, yet there are some people who had vast and deep knowledge and wrote a lot, still they call it The Hidden Mystery. Meaning human's and even angels' brain and mind is limited and no matter what God reveals to us we will never will be able to understand what and how it happened. We can only be happy and grateful to God and accept whatever He reveals and we can understand up to a point.
This reflects an ancient tribal view of knowledge and belief, and is often the basis for Christians to reject science and new knowledge of the world. Blind binding trust leads to the intentional ignorance of anything beyond what your church teaches, This a poor basis for knowledge based on an ancient tribal literature.
 
Last edited:

titani2

New Member
According to chapter 4 of the Qur'an Jesus was not killed or crucified as follows:
Qur'an 4:157 And for their saying, "Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Isa, son (of) Maryam, (the) Messenger (of) Allah." And not they killed him and not they crucified him but it was made to appear (so) to them. And indeed, those who differ in it (are) surely in doubt about it. Not for them about it [of] (any) knowledge except (the) following (of) assumption. And not they killed him, certainly.
(Translation - Word for Word: Dr. Shehnaz Shaikh, Ms. Kauser Katri, and more)
Firstly according to verse 157 the Jews were boosting about killing Jesus by crucifixion, then Allah claims they did not kill him or crucify Jesus.
Secondly it was made to appear to the Jews that Jesus was killed and crucified.
Thirdly the Qur'an claims those differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus are in doubt, have no knowledge of the event, and are following assumptions.
Fifthly the Qur'an clarifies the Jews did not kill Jesus.
Question:
Who is differing over the death and crucifixion of Jesus, who is in doubt, and who is making assumptions over the event?
This is the actual verse: (Quran 4:157)  And for their saying, “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they did. Those who differ about him are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, except the following of assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.  But God raised him up to Himself. God is Mighty and Wise. - Source www.notequran.com/#/ch/4/v/158
 
He died in his sleep at a ripe old age
For the sake of this debate lets say he did. Personally i dont know your religion or if u even are religion so if you reply let me know. So you claim Jesus died of Old age ? we have a few sources that would claim otherwise. Before we get into it lets talk about his death you provlaim he got old when we already know he died at 33 as wee see from muktiple accounts and the letters from paul/peter which all date after 33 ad and claim his death. 33 is not old or ripe then your claim of it happening in his sleep is also easily refuted with the alexamenos graffiti which was found depicting jesus as a donkey on the cross. now i would enjoy seeing your response.

Greetings Simeon
 
Top