1. 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 killed on the cross?

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Yaqub, May 30, 2010.

  1. dogsgod

    dogsgod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,851
    Ratings:
    +172
    Supposing the story of Jesus is complete fiction, what difference does it make to the message?
     
  2. dogsgod

    dogsgod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,851
    Ratings:
    +172
    Actually, within the gospels, there appears to be an awful lot of literary allusions to passages found in what we now refer to as the OT. Jerusalem was destroyed at the time, or prior to the time that the gospel of Mark was written. Mark could very well be written as a reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem, the narrative of the Gospel being rooted in symbolism about the destruction of Jerusalem. see The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory . It's possible that the author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul as well as the Septuagint, and drew from them when writing of a failed Pauline tradition. The author of Luke is reliant on Mark and perhaps he may have thought Mark's account was historical, but in any event, he had to know he was making up the birth story that he added on.
     
    #142 dogsgod, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  3. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,042
    Ratings:
    +1,264
    Religion:
    Christian
    There is no indication let alone prophecy in PS 22 that the Messiah will actually have His prayer answered and be rescued. The fact that God hears our prayers does not guarantee that he will grant the petition. Jesus made a similar prayer for deliverance in the Garden of Gethsemane but He had already told his followers that he came into the world to die.

    Jesus is not necessarily saying that everything that would happen to Him would be exactly as it was with Jonah (after all Jesus wasn't swallowed by a fish), however the three days in the tomb could be likened to three days in a whale. The resurrection covers the life from the dead represented by the whale spewing Jonah out on dry land.

    It could not have appeared as such unless it was actually happening. The question then becomes what was different. The difference was that Jesus left the body before it died (scripture supports this) so that it wasn't the crucifixion that caused the death of the body but the fact that Jesus left the body.

    Your faith is in a falsehood based upon a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran and your unbelief that God can preserve His word in the Bible. The bottom line is that you do not have faith in God or the Holy Spirit to help you understand what is true.
     
  4. Allah-lover

    Allah-lover Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Ratings:
    +8
    Jesus prayers and peace be upon him will return according to muslims & christians
     
  5. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,042
    Ratings:
    +1,264
    Religion:
    Christian
    So! There are Christians who believe in the false Doctrine of the Trinity. Believing something does not mean it is true.

    Any conflicting stories are not from God. The evidence in the Bible is sufficient.
     
  6. roundsquare

    roundsquare Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    Ratings:
    +0
    Show me manuscript evidence that the titles of the Gospels were added later on, show me for examplee an early copy of Matthew lacking the title. And also name this early Christians who held that Thomas was the beloved disciple, demonstrate your claim that early church tradition is so diverse that it is flawed, demonstrate clearly How Irenaeus made a distinction between John the apostle and the beloved disciple.

    That they could have lied doesn't mean that they did. That the early church distinguished between 3 John's mean's nothing because Polycarp quite clearly identified the the beloved disciple as John the apostle.
     
    #146 roundsquare, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  7. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,042
    Ratings:
    +1,264
    Religion:
    Christian
    That was why the soldiers were breaking the legs of the other two who were being crucified, so that they wouldn't survive. They didn't break the legs of Jesus because He was already dead. However they weren't taking any chances that His premature death was certain, so they made certain by piercing his side.

    "could have" and what actually happened are two different things.

    What is your evidence for this? My understanding is that in embalming the blood is replaced by embalming fluid after rigor mortis has set in. Rigor mortis sets in three hours after death and that is probably the maximum time that Jesus could have been dead on the cross since the Biblical record is that He died at 3PM and had to be cut down before sabbath which is at 6PM.

    I would like to see you revive a dead person this way. It would be amusing. Have the doctors been informed this can be done?

    This wasn't a questio of "who Jesus is" but of Jewish law of which the scripture takes note.
     
  8. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    The key to this passage in Matthew 4:5-7 and Luke 4:9-12 satan knew that Jesus was familiar with Psalm 91. satan also knew that Jesus understood it to be about Himself. This entire event would have no meaning unless these two assumptions were true. Satan has only three opportunities to directly tempt jesus into sin, and he chose to quote psalm 91:11-12 in this attack to Jesus. Satan wants to see if he can get Jesus on the defensive by testing His faith in this promise. satan seems to want to make Jesus doubt the reality of His own faith in God's promised angelic protection. It may also have been a test of Jesus knowledge and Faith in the Scripture themeseltes. satan may have seen some other ways in which this could have created a dilemma for Jesus.

    Regardless, in that temptation, satan says that these verse are directly about Jesus. Jesus, in response, did not deny this interpretation. satan would have been really Stupid to have made such an assertion wrongly. Jesus would simply have said "you have misinterpreted that scripture." instead, Jesus accepted satan's promise but redirects him to another Scripture that completly sets abide Jesus need to respond to the implications of Satans request.

    This means that Jesus knew psalm 91 very well and and had put much thought into its application to his own life. Jesus also had a balanced understanding of the prophecies embedded here, and satan did not confuse Him for a moment.

    Psalm 91 is about Jesus. If it were not so, this temptation event is nonsense.

    Psalm 91 and isaiah 52:13 clearly says Jesus was raised and lifted up..


    Can you give me only 1 rabbi name who believe in Jesus as christ or can you give me any pastor name who believe Jesus never crucified??

    Most of Rabi agree that psalm 91 chapter have prophecy and in Gospel Jesus made it more clear...


    Psalm never says Jesus died on cross but Psalm says Jesus saved by Almighty God. Why you always using psalm 91 chapter prophecy refers about Children of God? Where it says about children of God? It says about a single person. God said it to David by Holy spirit but David never faced any problem in his life time so it was unfulfilled and indeed Jesus fulfilled that Prophecy!!!
    Psalm many chapter says God will save him. What God did with David? David always was king, he had no problem in his real life, nor David has lost his kingdom for one second. Even David did adultery with a women (2 samuel, 11: 3-4) but God saved him not from that sin. So all very clear that its the prophecy of Jesus Because God only gave him angel protection...
     
    #148 Shine_0f_sun, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  9. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    You fail to realise that psalm 91 chapter says about Only 1 person, not multiple person. Psalm 91 clearly promises that Jesus will cry out to God almighty for help, and God Almighty will Send down the Angels protect him from death and harm. "Harm" there could mean permanent or fatal harming that is too damaging.

    Also, the "will" here shows that psalm 91 is about prophecies that WILL happen and will be fulfilled. And according to Islam, yes, Jesus was lifted up and saved.

    Psalm 91:

    13."You will tread upon the lion and the cobra:
    you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

    14. "Because he loves me," says the Lord, I will rescue him;

    I will protect him, for acknowledges my name.

    15.He will call upon me, and I will answer Him;

    I will be with him in trouble,

    I will deliver him and honour him"


    So its clearly a prophecy about upcoming Messiah.. Gospel clearly says God sent his angels to Jesus christ and angels strengthened him.. This is very clear in Gospel.

    "An Angel from heaven appeared to Jesus and strengthened him"[luke 22:43]


    Do not make me laugh. Psalm 91 chapter never said about children of God. God said to King david and God promised him about angel protection. It says about a single person. Psalm 91 prophecy never said about John so why this question about john?

    KING david always was king and he never faced any danger. In psalm 91, he said us few prophecy what he heard from God by Holy spirit. There we see "will" so its a prophecy which referred about God protection to a single person. There David never used anything in past so how you can tell that he was in happy mood??

    My response about psalm 22:

    In Gospel have contradiction about Jesus last word before crucifixion

    what was Jesus last word?

    Jesus said "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [Matthew 27:46-50]

    Jesus called out with a Loud voice, "Father, into ur hands I commit my spirit." when he had said this, he breathed his last[Luke 23:46]

    Matthew claimed that after this word [Matthew 27:46-50] they crucified him but Luke claimed that they crucified him after this word[Luke 23:46]
    ..So we are not sure actually what Jesus said there. Anyway let discuss about psalm 22 chapter..

    We know most of christian missionary always quote psalm 22 chapter, espicaly psalm 22:16 Verse to prove Jesus crucifixion

    1st point: In Gospel we are not sure what was Jesus last words and actually what Jesus said.. According to luke, we can not tell Jesus said "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"[Psalm 20:1]

    2nd point: Psalm 22:16 is a mistranslation in bible. This a dirty tricks to prove their crucifixion lie!!

    Psalm 22:16 never says about crucifixion

    Psalm 22:16 in hebrew "k'ari b'yadai v'raglai" which meaning "Like a lion (the enemies) are at my hands and feet"[psalms 22:16]

    "lion" this word also used in psalm 91 chapter prophecy

    "You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent"[Psalm 91:13]

    the correct translation of Psalm 20:16 "Like a lion (the enemies) are at my hands and feet"[psalms 22:16]


    we see psalm 91:13 and psalm 22:16 have a similiar, so if we believe Jesus used psalm 22:1 before crucifixion then according to Psalm 22:16 and similiar verse psalm 91:13 Jesus was Saved by God Almighty!!!

    3rd point: Psalm 22 chapter have few contradiction with Jesus

    "O my Lord, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent"[Psalm 22:2]

    God indeed answered Jesus by angel. Gospel says God sent his angels, so its sure God obviouly answered jesus by angels. Anyway Psalm 22 chapter never says Jesus died on cross but God Almighty saved Jesus!!!
     
    #149 Shine_0f_sun, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  10. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    All people believe that Psalm 90 were written by Moses but Psalm 91 were written by king David himself. Its not important psalms were written by whom but Indeed psalm 91 says God saved Jesus!!


    Before God gave Prophethood for the children of Israel but jews killed many Prophets, even it was not like good to jesus, that why he said:

    "O Jerusalem! jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"[Matthew 23:37]

    This is the reason why Jesus said kingdom of God shall given to another nation!!

    "Therefore Say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"[matthew 21:43]



    in Bible God almighty Promised that He shall give a great nation to Ishmael, as well we everybody know Ishmael is the Father of Arabs

    "AND AS FOR ISHMAEL, I have heard you: I HAVE HEARD YOU: I WILL SURELY BLESS HIM; I WILL MAKE HIM FRUITFUL AND WILL GREATLY INCREASE HIS NUMBERS. HE WILL BE THE FATHER OF TWELVE RULERS, AND I WILL MAKE HIM into A GREAT NATION"[Genesis,17:19-21]

    We first see a clear promise from God Almighty that He will make "GREAT NATION" from Ishamel descendents.


    The Jews were God chosen people..

    "I did aforetime grant to the Children Of Israel the Book the Power of command, and Prophethood, I gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; AND I FAVOURED THEM ABOVE THE NATION"[Quran, 45:16]


    Now kingdom of God in Arab and Jesus prophecy fulfilled
    !!


    Its a funny reason. God just tested The faith of Job and it was a great test from his LORD. My question why job not died?? He could die but he was Alive by God Almighty. God also tested Abraham and many prophets..Its not new. Remember, God only tested the faith of Abraham but finally his only son never died so we see God dont like human sacrifice! If God tested the Faith of Jesus then also Jesus not died on cross because before no Prophet died by God test. Prophet can suffer problem but God also save them..

    Its really so funny to know that you claiming Psalm 91 said about job but you fail to realise that Job came before David. Psalm 91 written by King David and that times job was an ex prophet. So how psalm 91 prophecy can refer to a dead man?
    Lol. Pls do not make me laug dude.


    I already said God allowed Job to suffer to test about his faithfulness but here have no relation with psalm 91 chapter. Psalm 91 is a prophecy, not anything in past and it says about a single person!!! I already prove that psalm 91 prophecy indeed referred to Jesus christ.


    Prophet can suffer problem so whats wrong? Every prophets were human, even prophets were guilty of sin.

    Noah a drunkard [genesis 9:21]

    lot a drunkard and guilty of incest [Genesis, 19:30-38]

    King David commits adultery with Uriah's wife[2 samuel, 11: 3-4]

    And Then murdered her husband[ 2 samuel, 11:15-18]

    note: According to Psalm 2:7 David was begotten son of God!

    Aaron fashions an idol (the golden calf) for the jews worship [exodus 32:1-4]

    etc etc etc...

    I never said any prophet can not suffer problem or can not do any sin!!!


    SORRY FOR MY LATE RESPONSE CAUSE I WAS AWAY FOR MY COLLEGE EXAM. NOW READ MY RESPONSE!!!!!
     
  11. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    My Response:

    I dont wanna believe that it written by John himself!!!

    "Many Scholar of the part two centuries have denied that John wrote this book, partly because of their belief that the author fabricated many details such the miracles and discourses of Jesus" [The Holman illustrated Study Bible, ISBN 978-1-58640-275-4, Gospel of John, page 1540]

    "Critical Analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person"[The new American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4 page 1136]

    "Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies"[The new American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136]

    "Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style "[New American Bible, ISBN : 978-0-529-06484-4, page 1136]

    "The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels"[New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, page 1136]

    "The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present from probably dates from between A.D 90 and 100 Tradictionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, thou many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, Including Alexandria"
    [New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, page 1136]

    so again, no one knows regarding the "Gospel of John"


    1.Who wrote it.

    2.How many people wrote it.

    3.When it was written.

    4.Where it was written.


    Also, when one reads this gospel, he would immediately notices that it was not written by John himself. Christians say that it was John the Apostle writting about John the Baptist. The evidence in the quotes above CLEARLY PROVES THAT THIS IS A DESPERATE LIES!

    I Submit to you that neither John wrote anything in john 19:25-27!!

    John 1:1, john 3:16 (read my post "My response about John 3:16) etc verses were obviouly written by mysterious men and not by of Jesus original disciples. Therefore it is blasphemy to consider such verse as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the creator of the universe through them. The lie of trinity and Jesus died for your sin both theory were born between the years of 150 to 300. Its is quite possible and highly probable that some church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they found. Its highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that whole gospel of John were written by jesus original disciples.

    The Gospel of John was written about John but not by originally "Saint John" big difference and and big corruption!!!
     
    #151 Shine_0f_sun, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  12. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    PROOF THAT JESUS WAS NEVER RESURRECTED AND HE WAS ALIVE IN TOMB:


    According to Luke 20:36 Those resurrected are as the angles, i.e "angelized", spiritualized, spiritual creatures.

    1st we see according to Gospel Jesus all disciples deserted Him and fled [Matthew 26:55-56, mark 14:50]

    "Everyone deserted him and fled"[mark 14:50]

    The Gospels record that the 12 apostles "forsook him and fled at Gethsemane"[Matthew 26:56]

    Meaning They disappeared from the story and did not witness the crucifixion.

    "But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense"[Luke 24:11]

    This means early christians did not believe Jesus had to die for their sins.

    The disciples heard hearsay and they thought Jesus that Jesus was killed but when they saw Jesus they were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a spirit.

    they all was full of doubt.See luke 24:38

    "jesus asked why they are troubled and why do doubts rise in ur mind?"[Luke 24:38]

    Everything is clear in next verse!


    "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see i have"[Luke 24:39]


    The question why would Jesus mention the fact the he is NOT a ghost/spirit?

    When Jesus said that he is not Spirit then he showed them his hands and feet.

    "He showed them his hands and feet"[luke 24:40]

    And while they still did not believe it because of Joy and Amazement

    Then jesus said give me something to eat. Cause spirit/ghost never need any food.

    "Jesus asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"[luke 24:41]

    My question why did jesus ask for something to eat?

    Then disciples Gave him piece of broiled fish.

    "Disciples gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence"[luke 24:42-43]

    Why Jesus ate in their presence? To prove what?
    Only one can be logical answer that to prove he is a living man, that he eats.

    Jesus showed his hands and feet to prove that he was not a spirit and he was not resurrected.

    That means Jesus was not crucified (not die by cross), nor He was resurrected

    Because he had a physical body, not a spiritual body.

    Cause before Jesus said in the resurrection from the dead body is unto angel [luke 20:35-36
    ]
    Saint paul said 1 corinthians 15:44 resurrected body should be a spiritual body.

    "in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the ANGELS. They are God's children, since they are the children of resurrection" [luke 20:35-36]

    Meaning resurrection from the dead body have spirit

    But Jesus said he is not Spirit
    [Luke 24:39]

    Meaning Jesus NEVER was resurrected!!
    Another Proof:

    Even Mary magdalene had seen alive jesus! Read What Jesus said to Mary Magdalen

    Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and ur God" [john 20:17]

    Read Jesus said "i have not yet returned to the Father"


    means that He was still Alive, NOT DEAD YET, because if somebody dies, he then goes back to the Creator. This was strongest proof admitted by Jesus himself.

    then Mary Magdalen said She had seen Alive Jesus

    When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it [mark 16:11]

    Your bible have "Alive"

    Mary Magdalen did not vouch for a spook, or ghost or spirit of Jesus but a LIVE Jesus.

    Medical proof:


    if Jesus died on the cross, his BLOOD would clot, and no blood would gush out of his body when his side was piereced.

    But the gospel states that blood and water came out

    "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"[John 19:34]


    Logical proof:


    "Pilate was suprised to hear that he was already dead..."[Mark 15:44]

    Why Pilate was suprised to hear that Jesus was already dead? Because crucifixion is a slow death. No man can die in cross within only 3 hours. Its possible that Jesus body was Alive but everyone thought he dead..


    Why Jesus legs were not broken?

    "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken"[John 19:36]

    Where scripture says? Niv referred it to Psalm 34:20

    "A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all, he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken"[Psalm 34:19-20]

    as these verses dont even seem to be talking about the Messiah or any crucifixion, but assuming that they did, psalm 34:20 says that God will protect "All his bones"

    Also notice how psalm 34:19 says that the Lord delivers him from "All of the troubles" which clearly against the crucifixion lie..


    Actually It was crucifiction, NOT crucifixion!!!!
     
    #152 Shine_0f_sun, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  13. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    The evidence in the Bible is conflicting. So if the Bible is from God, and the Bible has conflicting stories, one must assume that those conflicting stories are from God, or that the Bible truly is not from God.
     
  14. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    So instead of proving your point, or citing any sources, you want me to instead? Fine, I will be glad to do so. For the manuscript evidence, I would go with Bart D. Ehrman. He has a great college level book on the subject called The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writing. He also has two other books that would help as well. The first, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The second being a Brief Introduction to the New Testament. That or you could basically pick any Biblical textual criticism book from any mainstream seminary. Or if you want something fast an easy off the internet, Wikipedia would probably work.

    For Irenaues, all you have to do is read him. He states that the writer of John is the disciple of Jesus, as opposed to the apostle of Jesus.

    As for beloved disciple being Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas would be a good place to start.

    And Polycarps disciple, Irenaeus, identified the beloved disciple as John, the disciple of the Lord, which is distinctly different than the Apostle John.
     
  15. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    The remains of the one victim of crucifixion that we have found did not have their legs broken. So there is no reason to assume that he would have had his legs broken. More so, there is no reason to assume that they would try to speed up the death of Jesus (which is why they were going to break his legs). That would have been counterproductive. The crucifixion was suppose to be a long lasting agony, as well as a sign to others not to mess with Rome.

    Also, there is evidence that they had had people crucified and hanging on the cross during the Sabbath. So there was no reason to speed up his death. Really, there is no reason to assume that they would have broken his legs in the first part.

    The piercing story is only in John, the Gospel that most scholars agree is more theological, than historical. As in, it is the least historically correct. So the event most likely never happened. And even if it did, it causes problems. Why did all the other Gospels leave that out? Why was he bleeding if it was supposedly dead? Why were they even taking him off of the cross? Why did they even want to speed up his death?

    And that fact still is, one can survive the crucifixion. Mark, Matthew, and Luke never mention the spear story so according to those, it would be more likely then.

    I agree, but the Bible simply has flaws, and I find it incorrect to suggest that it has the actual happenings. I also don't suggest that what I said is 100% historical, but it is just as possible as what the Bible suggests. Personally, I agree that he did die, yet not in the same way that the Bible states. Either way, his short time of the cross according to the Bible does raise questions.

    It is accepted that corpses don't bleed. They may have some blood that slowly oozes out, but it won't be a sudden gush. The reason being that to bleed one must have blood flowing through their body, which is caused by the heart pumping.

    Also, he didn't have to be cut down for the sabbath. There are cases in which people were on the cross during the sabbath. It is actually illogical to assume that the Romans would crucify Jesus just so they could take him off a few hours later.

    I never said that you can revive a dead person this way. If the person was still alive, one could be healed to a point. Aloe and myrrh were not used for burial customs. However, it is known that they were used, even during that time, as healing agents, granted the person is alive.

    They were under Roman rule.
     
  16. dogsgod

    dogsgod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,851
    Ratings:
    +172
    It's incredible reading what people go through in order to piece together what might have happened and didn't happen if these stories are supposedly historical. The gospels differ, and they tell of things that could not possibly happen historically but instead have a theological basis, they are allegorical, fiction, and the story is lost on those that read them as historical events. Mark is writing of a failed Pauline tradition, one that was open to include gentiles, and Matthew is writing from a Jewish perspective, one that was in line with the Peter and James we read of in Paul's epistles. Remember James, the one that would not eat with the uncircumcised, those would be the gentiles? If you think these gospels are not theology but instead are historical records, then have at it, and good luck.
     
  17. Shine_0f_sun

    Shine_0f_sun Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +6
    Dude pls do not misunderstand. I do not believe this whole bible cause its a corrupt book. I judge this bible by Quran. I only believe in common terms as God Almighty says in Quran:

    "say: 'O scripture of the Book (i.e jews and christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah'. If then they turn Back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims(bowing to Allah's will)'[Quran 3:64]


    Jesus said his sign shall be the sign of Jonah. So its important what was the sign of jonah.

    But Jesus answered and said unto them "an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah"[matthew 12:39]

    You should read "book of Jonah" 3 days and 3 nights Jonah was Alive in the belly of the fish and that was his sign. Jonah never died there. If anyone die then its not a sign. Jesus said his sign shall be sign of Jonah. So obviouly Jesus was still Alive in tomb unto Jonah.Its logical


    They had no any eye witnesses that why Crucifixion is full of contradiction.


    Sir Please tell me what was our sin and for what Sin Jesus died!! Jesus died for our sins right? If its true then we can tell Jesus came for sacrifice..But Jesus said he dont like sacrifice!

    "But go and learn what this means: I DESIRE MERCY, NOT SACRIFICE. For i have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"[Matthew 9:13]

    This a clear contradiction in christianity!!


    I already said that I dont believe this whole bible cause to me bible is a mixer. I know here have Gods Word and Prophets Word but Bible also have thousands of contradiction, math error, scientific error, rude words and sorry to say pornography. So i do not believe this whole bible.
    Now i just wanna give a single verse to prove Jesus is corrupted..Hope you will understand by only one verse:

    "How can you say, "we [the jews] are wise, for we have the law of Lord," when actually the laying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"[jeremiah 8:8]

    The Revised standard version (RSV) makes it even clearer

    "How can you say, "We are wish, and the law of the LORD with us? But, behold, the false pen of scribes has made it into a lie"[From the RSV, jeremiah 8:8]


    We may debate about Bible corruption in another thread.


    Paul was a false man.He never met with Jesus.
    Paul claimed he "thinks" that he has the holy spirit in him! Which meaning even he was not sure..

    "..I THINK that I too have the spirit of God"[1 corinthians, 7:40]

    I can prove by bible that paul was false man. Anyway we may debate about paul in another thread


    Read my previous post.I prove that Jesus was never resurrected from the dead

    Whole Bible is not incorrect but its a corrupt book. I have problem to believe this whole Bible

    According to christians belief Jesus said there psalm 22:1 so that times he had well knowledge about scripture. Psalm 22 chapter never said anything about crucifixion. In fact psalm 22 says God saved Jesus!


    I dont think he feels it. I also not sure what jesus said there because Gospel have contradiction about Jesus last words!!
     
    #157 Shine_0f_sun, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  18. Danmac

    Danmac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,632
    Ratings:
    +135
    God instructed Abraham.....

    Genesis 22: 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

    God didn't want Abraham to offer Isaac, he only wanted to see if he would......

    Genesis 22: 11 ¶ And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
    12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

    On there journey to the mountain Abraham told Isaac....

    Genesis 22: 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
    8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

    This offering was a symbolic gesture that would mimic God's ultimate plan to save mankind. God Himself would provide a lamb without blemish and without spot. As Abraham was about to offer his only son, so God would offer his only son.......

    Hebrews 11:17 It was faith that enabled Abraham, when put to the test, to offer Isaac as a sacrifice--he who had received the promises offering up his only son,
    18 of whom it had been said-- 'It is through Isaac that there shall be descendants to bear thy name.'
    19 For he argued that God was able even to raise a man from the dead--and indeed, figuratively speaking, Abraham did receive Isaac back from the dead.

    So also God offered His only Son....

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    A lamb without spot and without blemish...

    Ex 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

    1st Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
    19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
    20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
    21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

    So it was necessary that Christ die for the sins of humankind, and be raised from the dead, so that death might be destroyed thru faith in Christ.......

    Heb 2:14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also (Christ) himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

    So Jesus death is necessary for the redemption of humankind. He is the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.......

    Re 5:6 ¶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
     
  19. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    As Jesus was after the resurrection, according to the Gospels. So you're supporting the idea that Jesus was dead in the tomb.
    Doesn't matter at all. Crucifixion meant death. The Bible clearly says that Jesus died on the cross. Also, Jesus would have been known enough that someone simply would not have been switched with him. Especially after he was arrested and beaten. There would have been enough witnesses to the death of Jesus, or at least the crucifixion that some 12 disciples fled really doesn't matter.
    Has nothing to do with what you are saying. What they didn't believe was that Jesus had been resurrected and that his body was no longer in the tomb. You have to take the verse in context. Not just make up whatever you want with it.
    You don't understand the idea of resurrection do you? Of course Jesus was not a ghost. That was not what the resurrection meant. Basically what you've shown is exactly what would be logical if Jesus did in fact resurrect.

    The resurrection was suppose to be a physical resurrection. That was why there was no body in the tomb. It wasn't that Jesus was coming back as a ghost, it was that he would physically be resurrected. So yes, he was a living man. That was what the resurrection was about. A dead person was resurrected from the dead and once again became a living person.

    All that you've shown is that Jesus, according to the Bible, had a physical resurrection.
    It means you don't understand what the resurrection entailed. John also speaks of Lazareth being resurrected from the dead. Lazareth was dead, and was physically resurrected. The same thing is described with Jesus.

    The Bible clearly states that Jesus died, and was resurrected. You've never shown anything else.
    Actually, that would be logical considering what the resurrection entailed. Look at the story of Lazareth. Enough said.
    Yes, he was alive as he was resurrected. However, the Bible doesn't even say that when one dies that they go back to the creator. That was not the belief during that time. Just because Jesus had not returned to the Father means absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean he never died. Especially considering the beliefs during that time.
    Of course he was alive. You keep trying this point but it makes no difference. The Bible clearly says that he died. The Bible clearly says that he was resurrected. And it is only after he was resurrected that he was alive. The reason being that when one was resurrected, they became alive again. Your point is completely moot as, in the context of the Biblical story, it only makes sense that a resurrected Jesus would be alive.
    Only John states that. None of the other Gospels do. The reason being that it was probably just part of the tradition that the author of John was aware of.

    Also, there are logical reasons why blood would gush out. If the spear hit the heart, or lungs, blood would gush out. I think I've already explained this in more detail before. Also, after he was stabbed, he would have been dead very shortly after.

    More so, the fact that water gushed out as well raises questions. Basically the only explanations that would solve that problem would mean that Jesus was in fact dead.

    Also, the Bible clearly states that he was dead.

    Finally, the blood does not clot. The reason a corpse doesn't bleed is because the heart is no longer pumping. Thus the blood is not being circulated, or forced through the body.
    It wasn't 3 hours. More like 6 hours. So yes, it is possible he was alive. What you fail to mention though is that there would have been no reason to even take his body off the cross once he was thought to be dead. So the most likely outcome is that Jesus hung on the cross even longer than that.

    Finally, it would be possible to die in 6 hours. Even if he was taken off after that, the most likely outcome was death. Without qualified physicians by his side, the only outcome was pretty much death. There is only one record we have of a person surviving the crucifixion. He was taken down with a few other men. All of the other men died. These individuals had qualified physicians administering to them. And still, all but one of them died. Jesus was as good as dead.

    As you said, that scripture about his bones didn't actually pertain to him. That was a common tool of the Gospel writers, to search through the scripture after the fact to find so called prophecies. Also, we know from the only body of a crucifixion victim that we've found, the legs were not necessarily broken anyway. So it is logical that his legs would not have been broken. However, the verse really proves nothing except that the Gospel writers search through scriptures.

    As for Psalms 34:19, it also shows nothing. Jesus willingly went to the crucifixion according to the Bible. He allowed himself to do so. That verse does not mean that everyone will never have any troubles. So you really didn't make a viable point.

    Finally, you've proven absolutely nothing except that you don't understand what the resurrection meant, and that you can take verses out of context. According to the Bible, Jesus died. There is no getting around that. It is clear that he died, and was resurrected, according to the Bible.
     
  20. Hawkins

    Hawkins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +157
    That doesn't sound even logical. "could not possibly" means it can't be sure. If you can't be sure how can you conclude that "they are allegorical, fiction"?!

    History can be used as a reference. But humans are futile about the past as well as the future. History no matter how evidenced still require human skulls (which are subjective in nature) to interpret (with faith) what those evidence could mean. You need faith in the end and history as perceived by humans can hardly guarrantee truth.
     
    #160 Hawkins, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
Loading...