Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 526-550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:22:18 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Or a slap round the face.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:24:27 BDT
C. A. Small says:
DRDR- seek and you will find- so it is a self fullfilling search. Pointless.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:27:23 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Harry- copying drivel word for word still leaves you with drivel.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:28:48 BDT
C. A. Small says:
So post the evidence if it has been attested to by medical proof. But it will not hold up in a court of law so either put up or stop posting nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:31:11 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Brook- show one medically vindicated case of blindness being cured, one of deafness ( complete with audiometry tests showing the level of deafness before and after) and one of aids.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:33:22 BDT
C. A. Small says:
DRDR- so which do you think is more likely, a young woman giving birth or a virgin?, take your time, think about it.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:33:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2012 07:36:09 BDT
Shakrpen - [Ave Ryan: when you talk about "botched translations," Dr. Johson of Emory University agrees totally, particularly in regard to "young woman" versus "virgin." ]

We all now know that the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "virgin" can also mean "maiden", "damsel", "spinster", "young (unmarried) woman" etc. But the Bible (which, of course, is not admissible evidence, so why are we discussing it?) tells us that Mary was married, or at least betrothed, when she conceived!
There is also the problem of Jesus' brothers and sisters, some apparently older and some apparently younger, which makes the "perpetual virginity" story very hard to sustain. I think there's also something somewhere about Jesus being a "firstborn". Now was this just for Mary or for Mary and Joseph?
And then there is the Apocryphal story of Mary being one of the Temple virgins, and the "professional title" could have stuck. My own feeling is that this story more rightly belongs to Mary Magdalene, but somewhere along the line got transferred to Mary MoG.
Other versions have it that the "Angel Gabriel" was the title of one of the Essene leaders, or even that the father was a prince of the royal line (Davidic rather than Herodian).

It is interesting that there is never any mention of Jesus entering the Temple's Inner Court, from which He would have been excluded as a known bastard.

Reson consistently confuses the "Immaculate Conception" (of Mary") with the "Virgin Birth" (of Jesus).

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:39:56 BDT
C. A. Small says:
You stated millions of eyewitnesses- are you now withdrawing this ridiculous assertion?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:41:38 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Shakepen- a man called jesus existed, it was a common name- do not use that minor bit of information to extrapolate that the bible is true.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 07:43:22 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Shakepen- unless you have some , you may as well debate about the blood group of spiderman- was it changes after the spider bit him. It is also true because there have been comics, films etc, so it must be true.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 09:23:29 BDT
H W says:
Ryan

you have already made it clear, by your reply to me, that you do not know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have also presented modern evidence, providing you with a link to the Dead Sea scrolls, which show the Old Testament has remained unchanged for over 2000 years at least.

Taking all this into account, I don't think you can make any comments on biblical validity that should be accepted by the masses.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 09:25:31 BDT
H W says:
Clive you missed my point.

Ryan was suggesting that via Chinese Whispers, the Bible will have changed over years.

I showed you all a carbon dated copy of the old testament from 2000 years ago that shows the exact same translations as today.

Regardless of whether it is a real story or fiction, it has remained unchanged.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 09:53:04 BDT
C. A. Small says:
And the new testament?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 09:54:24 BDT
C. L. Brook says:
MLJ: You said "Jesus COULD have survived" ?
The Romans were expert at executing people. In the case of Jesus the situation was so politically fragile they had to make doubly/triply sure he was 'completely dead' in order to satisfy all the different factions who had an interest in his death. He had already been flogged with a cat-nine-tails as we called it in English - thongs of leather pierced with sharp metal fragments - (like being beaten with very flexible barbed wire) so that the bones on his back would have been exposed. However, on the cross, in order to quicken up the death of a crucifixion prisoner the Romans usually broke the legs - this caused the whole weight of the body to drop with heart failure as a result. In Jesus case they found him to be already dead when they came to break his legs to quicken up his death, so they didn't. However, to make doubly sure, they shoved a spear into his side. Pushing it up into His body at an angle from below, it would have sliced through vital organs, and probably also entered his heart. It is recorded that out of the wound came 'blood & water' - demonstrating that the wound was extremely deep and undoubtedly terminal - even if he hadn't been completely dead before, that piercing doubly ensured that he was - that was the purpose of it! The romans were experts at execution and the soldiers would have been executed themselves if they'd made a mistake.

p.s. The fact that someone crucified was 'cursed' was part of the whole point!! Jesus was cursed instead of us, died instead of us, shed his blood as a sacrifice to atone for our sin - so that we can be accepted by God and NOT cursed to hell anymore which we all are without the blood of Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:01:23 BDT
C. L. Brook says:
Small: Eh? I suspect you misunderstood the meaning of 'Seek and you WILL find' it is the absolute assurance that anyone who genuinely seeks God WILL find HIM. It is not talking about a misplaced toothbrush or similar but is a definate promise from God to the individual who wants to know Him - they can.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:09:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2012 10:13:31 BDT
H W says:
Ok,

The earliest fragments have been found and carbon dated to 125AD. Because they are fragmented pieces, we cannot make a whole picture. Some Greek churches, and Coptics of Egypt claim to have the earliest complete bibles too...

But because I don't know where to begin looking for NT evidence I can't comment as of yet.

And as you know, I think the New Testament IS largely hearsay.

My logic with the Old Testament being somewhat historical, is that they tell you about all the stupid stuff aswell as the good stuff. No one, in their right minds, who was writing a book about themselves, would include loads of stuff to make themselves look awful if they were trying to gain followers.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:14:19 BDT
C. L. Brook says:
Small: May I correct something that I didn't bother with initially....I thought it was a silly misunderstanding on your part but you keep on referring to it! so I need to address it.
In one of my posts I said something about hundreds, thousands and 'millions' of people having witnessed healings in the name of Jesus - I was never talking about one event that had been witnessed by millions! ok.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:19:20 BDT
C. A. Small says:
So what actual evidence do you have that millions of people have been cured- none.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:21:56 BDT
Pendragon says:
And courts of law.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:30:58 BDT
C. A. Small says:
hi Harry- you are extremely knowledgable so I was ( if I am honest) pushing your buttons to show to a certain other poster some information.

As you know, I think the old Testament is a reasonable history of the Jews , just with a lot of mumbo jumbo thrown in. The .n.t. is just a fairy story.

The earliest fragments being dated at 125ad leaves about 90 years after the alleged crucifixion, and those are only fragments. It is astonishing that theists still insist on the accuracy of the gospels.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 10:51:37 BDT
C. A. Small says:
brook, if you believe you will find god then you will find god? what a great argument. If you are convinced you will find an unevidenced, invisible, inaudible sky fairy when you seek the sky fairy then you will. Maybe not the greatest intellectual argument ever mooted but if it keeps you happy....

Posted on 3 Apr 2012 12:19:30 BDT
David Rudd says:
Yes, that's a tautology; but this isn't: 'Seek and you will find'.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 12:44:35 BDT
Drew Jones says:
No, it's not a tautology, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Sought and found: proof it works, well done.
Seeking but not yet found: doesn't mean you won't, carry on until you do.
Sought but did not find: proof you weren't doing it right, weren't really trying, you're insincere, too stupid to get it, arrogant etc.

It pretty much works for everything.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 14:34:03 BDT
C. L. Brook says:
Small: you quoted me as saying:"if you believe you will find god then you will find god?"
That is absolutely NOT what I said. I certainly didn't use the word believe in the way you quoted.

Attention to the detail when you are reading and an attempt to comprehend what another writer is expressing would prevent you missing the point so often...

To rephrase as simply as possible - IF someone genuinely WANTS to find out whether God exists and IF that person genuinely seeks to find out - God will ensure they find Him - to go full circle - back to the promise "Seek and you WILL find, Ask and you WILL receive, knock and the door WILL be opened to you...."for as many who seek will find.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 15:55:24 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Brook- read Drews post above.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  85
Total posts:  3232
Initial post:  8 Mar 2012
Latest post:  27 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions