Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 17:30:31 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Jim, you're looking in the mirror again.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 17:34:16 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 13 Mar 2012 18:25:42 GMT
David Rudd says:
C.A.S: I believe in the God who revealed himself in and through Jesus Christ, and he never said anything about drowning babies.
I think that the Noah story, and other ancient myths, are more to do with people trying to understand and explain the world around them rather than being facts about how God dealt with humankind.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 18:29:48 GMT
Spin says:
DR: May I ask: why do you believe in a God revealed to others but not to you? And, please, do not claim that reading words about others experiences constitutes actual, personal experience of "God". To "know" something exists one must have experience of it.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 18:32:34 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Curiously other christians take it literally. Even if you take it as allegorical it reveals a vicious, jealous, genocidal god, whom I would rather nail my nuts to a tree than debase myself by revering.

Posted on 13 Mar 2012 18:35:03 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 18:44:56 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin that is rather the point.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 18:49:34 GMT
Spin says:
Ca: Forgive me. I have a bad habit of stating the obvious. But my comments are not addressed to those who agree with me or understand my point, but to those who disagree and fail to understand. It is by disagreement that I learn, not by agreement.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 20:20:21 GMT
H W says:
Jim says it's just a myth and he's a Christian.

Can we have

Anita VS Jim

Winner to face Paul or Tom M.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 20:30:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Mar 2012 20:30:54 GMT
Spin says:
Being a "christian" is to live a myth. One cannot argue with folk who think the stories they read are actual reaity They believe only in stories reflecting those things they would like to achieve but do not have the weight of testes to actually attempt to achieve. Jesus says "love" so if he says it I must do it.not because I love, but because I am told to.... All religions, all mteaphysical spiritualities, while claiming to be "reality" do no more than cater for those who reject reality.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2012 20:31:00 GMT
You know Arius, I was going down the same track with the name of Jesus but it seems I may have been somewhat wrong in my assumptions. Read http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm and http://www.eliyah.com/nameson.htm for two interesting but opposite perspectives. Doug

Posted on 13 Mar 2012 20:43:12 GMT
Just a short post but there are lots of reasons to suppose Jesus was crucified (or Yeshua if you like).

a) Read the discussion between Anthony Flew and NT Wright in the back of 'There is a God: How the world's most notorious athiest came to believe in God'. It's main point is that something paradigm changing occurred after the crucifixion. Thousands of dedicated Jews whose culture had survived Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman conquest converted to belief in a crucified and ressurected Messiah. This is historical fact and needs a plausible answer. And this was within a year of Jesus' being crucified.
2) The empty tomb - everyone knew where it was, and nobody produced a dead body. The Christians could not preach something so blatantly untrue and get away with it. There are theories that suggest Jesus' body was dumped in a mass grave. Jewish culture and tradition for burying even criminals bodies make this extremely unlikely.
3) Researchers think they may have found the titulus - the headboard of the cross - read the book : The True Cross. They haven't come out and said it directly but the research suggests its unlikely this piece of wood with declerations about Jesus' written in 3 languages is a fake. If it is, they haven't proved it.
4) Read the evidence of hostile witnesses - Josephus, a Jew, writing 20-30 years after the crucifixion (when people like Caiphas the high priest could have still been alive - and btw - diggers have found his grave naming the very man who presided at Jesus' trial - another support for the biblical text). He had no reason to lie when he reported Jesus was crucified. There are 18 other extra-biblical mention of Jesus and Christians. see books by Gary Habermas
5) The Magdalen fragements- held by a British uni - fragments of the gospel of Mathew currently dated to the middle of the first century because of the style of writing on the papyrus - this was written within the lifetime of eye-witnesses and possibly by the apostle mathew himself.
6) If the disciples knew it was a lie why did 11 out of the 12 die for their faith. Were they really that stupid? From memory, Peter was crucified, the Romans tried boiling John alive, Timothy was beaten to death remonstrating with a pagan mob about their idolatory etc etc etc

The point is, if you do a serious investigation using current SKEPTICAL historical research standards the conclusion serious researchers have reached is that there really was a man called Jesus (Iesus in the Greek, probably Yeshushua in the Hebrew), he was crucified, and he did rise again.

Until you've done some serious research you have the right to an opinion but you don't have the right to have it taken seriously. And I don't mean that in a nasty way, I've only basic reading on Islam so can't make any serious comments (for instance).

thanks for reading.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 08:56:25 GMT
Hey spin, so what's the alternative? Listen, if you're determined not to investigate the historical and spiritual reality then that's up to you. You wouldn't understand it anyway as Jesus clearly says that unless you obey him you won't know His teachings are from God.

So what are you going to do? Live as someone who determines what good is for themselves? That really worked for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Potz - Gary Glitter. He thought abusing small children was right. Of course, you wouldn't do that but if there's no God then there's no good, is there? What's to stop you murdering your next door neighbour because you justified it as good? They did that in Rwanda, right?

Spin, do your research. I don't mean this in any bad or hateful way - your arguments have no validity because you don't know what you're talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 09:24:00 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Dc;"You wouldn't understand it anyway as Jesus clearly says that unless you obey him you won't know His teachings are from God."- Ah the old dictator school of religion- lovely. A spiritual protection racket. Odious.

Posted on 14 Mar 2012 09:44:13 GMT
David Rudd says:
It could be put in a more personal way, which is that you'll never get to know a person, any person including Jesus, unless you try. If all a person can do is criticize and pull down, friom a distance, then they're never likely to get to know him.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 11:20:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2012 11:36:48 GMT
Drew Jones says:
1) "Thousands of dedicated Jews whose culture had survived Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman conquest converted to belief in a crucified and ressurected Messiah. This is historical fact and needs a plausible answer. And this was within a year of Jesus' being crucified."
Well the answer is quite simple. Judaism is just as able to cope with thousands converting to Christianity and surviving as a belief as they were during Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman conquests. Christianity no more vanquished them than the other groups you mention - if their survival through this doesn't need explaining, their survival in a post-Jesus world doesn't really need explaination.

2) "The empty tomb - everyone knew where it was, and nobody produced a dead body."
Did they? How do you know this? I never understand why we're meant to assume that something effecting a small cult yet to take off in any significant sense should be under heavy scrutiny at every point. The stories were still years off being spread, there's no reason to think there was anything to respond to at the time.

3) "Researchers think they may have found the titulus - the headboard of the cross - read the book : The True Cross. They haven't come out and said it directly but the research suggests its unlikely this piece of wood with declerations about Jesus' written in 3 languages is a fake. If it is, they haven't proved it."
So someone has found a bit of wood and they wrote a book rather than submitting it to any sort of evaluation. It has three different languages on it and you think by virtuie of those things (that beyond the bounds of human capabilities to form such a artifact without some divive intervention?) and somehow this backs up the idea that someone came back from the dead. That is probably the worse suggestion of evidence I've seen in quite a while. The fact you switching the burden of proof at the end shows the commitment to evidence you place on this idea.

4) Josephus did what historians do, he wrote about the cultural ideas that surrounded him. Christianity was included within that culture and so got mentioned, at no point did they affirm the events nor did they have the ability to confirm the events. The parts where Josephus overstates the abilities of Jesus are widely thought to be forgeries, they are out of character for a Jew and don't appear in earlier manuscripts.

5) The Gospels may have been written by someone with the name associated with them. They may feasibly have first appeared within a lifetime of the time the narrative takes place. That's still a long way off being true and accurate. Second World War historical fiction meets these tenuous critieria but are no more factual because of it.

6) " If the disciples knew it was a lie why did 11 out of the 12 die for their faith. Were they really that stupid? From memory, Peter was crucified, the Romans tried boiling John alive, Timothy was beaten to death remonstrating with a pagan mob about their idolatory etc etc etc"
First I don't think it inconcievable that someone might die for something they doubt or are genuinely mistaken on. Second, how do we know any of them went in with their eyes wide open when they preached and with the option to recant when in danger? I've made the point before that the Roman's didn't mess about when executing trouble makers of any sort, did the martyrs imagine that they'd be caught when they started preaching, it's not as if there are no perks to outweigh the risk in the job of cult leader. More than that, there are a few situations I can think of that provide a couple of reasons that someone might die for a lie they know to be a lie; to protect a friend or family member facing the threat of death, under torture people admit to things that aren't true and are then killed for that false admission or admit to correct accusations just to stop the torture. All these sitiations have people somewhat willingly going to their deaths.

"The point is, if you do a serious investigation using current SKEPTICAL historical research standards the conclusion serious researchers have reached is that there really was a man called Jesus (Iesus in the Greek, probably Yeshushua in the Hebrew), he was crucified, and he did rise again."
Sorry but you've been mislead if you think that the third, incredible 'rose again' claim is widely held as established by serious researchers. Given the time and nature of the events it's not even something that could be easily established, certainly not by the things you have put forward. You're evidence would stand for mundane claims such as people *believed* these things happened, wrote that they happened or even parts of it happened (a man called Jesus was crucified) but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this isn't it. The very fact that you switched the burden of proof at one point undermines your pretenstions to be serious and "SKEPTICAL" in your investigation.

"Until you've done some serious research you have the right to an opinion but you don't have the right to have it taken seriously. And I don't mean that in a nasty way, I've only basic reading on Islam so can't make any serious comments (for instance)."
What qualifies as serious research? It's a good idea to research a subject as much as possible but there is a fine line between suggesting that sceptics need to study more or more seriously and merely trying to suggest sceptics keep themselves busy until they are ready to believe.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 11:49:01 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"So what are you going to do? Live as someone who determines what good is for themselves?"
What else is there for us to do? Who determines that God/Jesus is good? You or Jesus? You're either in the same boat or circular logic.

"Of course, you wouldn't do that but if there's no God then there's no good, is there?'
How do you work that one out? There are still better and worse social interactions and strategies without a god. Even with a God how do you know what's good or not? Are things good because God said so or does God tell you to do the things he says because they are good? It's Eurothryo's dilemma. And that's not even throwing a devil into the mix and asking how you pick the good one from the bad one if you think we can not know good from bad by ourselves?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 12:29:08 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 13:41:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Mar 2012 13:42:27 GMT
H W says:
[Genocidal? A brainless accusation to make of a supposed creator.]

Jim, even you can't deny that YHWH targeted certain tribes. He disliked people because they came from a particular tribe too.

The story of David and Goliath makes for strange ethics. The giant Phillistines were viewed as nothing but barbarians because of their brute strength and size... whereas when the Israelites slaughtered them, they were championed by God, who made them a mighty nation.

And when David collected 300 foreskins from his dead enemies and presented them to King Saul, YHWH was well pleased with him...

Was it simply God's version of Natural selection?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 13:51:22 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 14:09:39 GMT
H W says:
[Anyone can deny that when, in true Amazon tradition, not a single word is quoted in support.]

Hi Jim, here is the foreskin verses, please tell me why the lord was pleased with David?

-Samuel 18:27
David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Samuel 18:29
When Saul realized that the LORD was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David,

Samuel 18:30
Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 14:57:02 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 14 Mar 2012 15:00:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Mar 2012 15:00:42 GMT
H W says:
why was the lord was pleased with David?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 15:02:33 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 15:05:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Mar 2012 15:05:43 GMT
H W says:
Yes, because if you've read the Nevi'im you'll understand that in Samuel 18:20-onwards, the LORD is well pleased with David, giving him victory over thousands of people.
[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
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
158 1 hour ago
Should we take Sade to the Sadists. 0 6 minutes ago
Should we take Jihad to the Jihadists. 0 8 minutes ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 61 17 minutes ago
Does Christianity make any sense? 484 28 minutes ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 892 47 minutes ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1249 1 hour ago
The thread for all religion bashing homosexuals to come OUT on. You know you want to, George Michael never looked behind him when he came out. 8 1 hour ago
How do Christians decide which rules in the bible should be obeyed? 27 1 hour ago
Hollande "Terrorists will stop at nothing". yes, well done Sherlock, that's why YOU shouldn't have let them in. 0 1 hour ago
Is President Trump right. Should we ban all Muslims and start deporting them in large amounts until they can prove they can accept civillisation and modern practices. I'm sure we all like history but the dark ages were the dark ages. 635 1 hour ago
Don't mention the word Muslim. Hollande won't, Obama didn't want to and the BBC certainly won't. They'd rather you didn't have any thoughts on the matter. And then they are surprised when they are voted out. 43 2 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

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