Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1226-1250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012 22:15:21 BDT
1) I've heard the Joseph of Arimathea explanation before, can't remember where. But given his prominence in the gospel accounts, do you really think he would stay silent about the 'resurrection'. It also fails to explain how he got in and removed the body without the guards on the tomb noticing, and why he removed the grave clothes and left them folded, rather than in a heap - a pretty contrived conspiracy if you ask me, especially for someone whom the New Testament gives a lot of accolades.

1b) Jesus just walked away... after three years of being one of the most recognisable people in Palastine - only a week before people were waving him in to Jerusalem like King David returned and then they forgot him. It doesn't actually explain the post resurrection appearances either - how does he walk through walls or have a long conversation with people on the Road to Emmaus. Finally there is the problem of the Roman authorities - unlikely to make a mistake when it comes to death - the killer being the piercing of the side where 'blood and water flowed'. I am told this is as the result of the fluids settling in a dead body.

2) Still fails to explain the post resurrection experiences.

Wayne

Posted on 26 Apr 2012 00:40:12 BDT
I doubt if anyone called Jesus was ever crucified. Just look at the contradicting four different gospel accounts, they are full of holes. They cannot be regarded as evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 01:43:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Apr 2012 01:44:42 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom: Please don't speak of "evidence"! CA talked me into reading Rohl. Even with written, ancient, contemporary evidence, the facts are questioned. Rohl, for example, believes that Salomon's reign was about 300-400 years earlier than most scholars accept, i.e.,late Bronze Age. My point is that it is hard to really "know" exactly what happened in the Ancient World. However, until disproved, I believe that ancient authors should be believed.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 02:19:40 BDT
DrDr

Why should anyone believe Paul's claims that, ''Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures'' (1 Corinthians 15:3-9), without any scriptural proof? We need proof not faith declarations!

If the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian's Old Testament) really supported Paul's prophetic claims, every Jew would have been convinced. After all, if anyone knows or understands their Scriptures, it's the Jews.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 03:34:56 BDT
WDB - "It also fails to explain how he got in and removed the body without the guards on the tomb noticing"

If you really want a plausible explanation, see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Crucifixion+by+an+eye-witness&x=12&y=20
but serious doubts as to its origins and authenticity!

1b) - "'blood and water flowed'. I am told this is as the result of the fluids settling in a dead body."

How long after death is it before arterial pressure drops to zero and blood starts to coagulate? What bodily fluids will "flow" at this point? But if the body were comatose, with reduced heart rate and blood pressure ... ? Was the lance thrust deep or just a prick? We're not told! What was the attitude of the Centurion in charge? The apocryphal gospels tell us he was a believer in Jesus, the same who had his child saved (at a distance). And what if he had secret instructions from Pilate? Tradition and many non-biblical accounts describe the cross as non-standard, favouring survival.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 05:40:28 BDT
One or the other. A temporary suspension of natural law *or* a natural occurance that falls outside our current understanding. Re-read my post.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 07:22:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Apr 2012 07:24:53 BDT
Tom - "Just look at the contradicting four different gospel accounts, they are full of holes. They cannot be regarded as evidence."

The same can be said of any multiple accounts of ancient historical events, or contemporary events for that matter.
EITHER you reject all and every eye-witness and reported account as evidence (so we could have no trials or history) OR you accept all and any accounts as potential evidence, weeding out inconsistencies and more obvious lies (bearing in mind that the improbable often happens) until proven otherwise, the normal modus operandi of human belief.
Almost everybody believes O. J. Simpson to be a murderer, but nobody can prove it! How many people now believe the official versions of the Attica rebellion, the JFK assassination, MMs overdose or suicide or Iraqui WMD dumps?
When WE see UFOs or ghosts or a static lathe under fluorescent lights, how far can we believe even the evidence of our own eyes, let alone that of others? Why should we believe that the manned moon-landing was any less of a hoax than the missiles in the Moscow parades? Just because we want to and side with the USA?
Now that is indoctrination for you!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 08:42:59 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Wdb- are you serious?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 08:49:05 BDT
C. A. Small says:
MLJ- to compare the moon landings with evidence for Jesus being the wandering cosmic carpenter of myth is frankly silly.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 09:14:45 BDT
Michael, I think you have missed the basis of my comment which is that the four gospel accounts are contradictory. You went on to compare them with other events in history. The evidence for each event has to be weighed up to establish the truth. Some will pass the test and others will fail, just as I believe the gospel accounts are not trustworthy for many reasons and therefore fail the test. If the bible was really the word of God, the evidence should be clear and unambigious, and not have to be attested in the same manner as other documents. The bible has been changed and tampered with by many different people over the centuries and scribes have made many errors in it. For example, the gospel of Matthew mentions that the two Marys went to visit the tomb and there was a violent earthquake and an angel is seen to come down and move the stone and sits on it and speaks to them and invites them 'in to look inside', yet the other three gospels fail to mention this. Not only that but the other gospels say that when the women came to the tomb they found that the stone had already been moved away. They even went inside and were wondering what had happened to the body before seeing an angel or two depending on which gospel one reads. For Mark, Luke and John not to mention the earthquake smacks of the Matthew account having been made up. For these three gospels not to mention the earthquake can be compared with the following modern day anology. An aeroplane is about to take off but before doing so, an earthquake opens up a huge hole in the runway and the plane crashes into it. An Alien being flies down and lifts the plane out of the hole and speaks to the passengers and reassures them that everything will be okay. That night, the news reports the crash but fails to mention anything about the earthquake causing the crash. That is just one reason why the accounts of Jesus' resurrection cannot be taken seriously. There are many more. There is simply NO credible evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 09:33:17 BDT
"But given his prominence in the gospel accounts, do you really think he would stay silent about the 'resurrection'."
Given their prominence in news and popular entertainment around the world do you really think penn and teller would stay silent about the "bullet catch"? People do things and keep silent about them all the time. They like duping eachother, either for good or not so good reasons.

And I don't think he got in past the guards on the tomb, I don't think Jesus ever went into the tomb, on that account.

1b) & 2) The post resurrection stories are stories, they could well have been fabrications, exagerrations, hallucinations or anything in between.

The whole thing could be based on a lie.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 09:53:14 BDT
DB says:
RD says -The whole thing could be based on a lie.

Going by your criteria, so could the Norman Conquest.
Can you produce anything but books and word of mouth? Do all the books describe it exactly the same, word for word, action for action, or do different authors put a slightly different slant on it?
The Bayeaux Tapestry depicts Harold having died with an arrow in his eye. This could be poetic license, or a mistake, or not true, we have no proof. Maybe it wasn't even Harold, but a substitute King, or maybe the whole thing was 'fabrications, exaggerations' .
Therefore because there are possible inconsistencies in the historical writings of this event, should we decide that the
"whole thing (battle) could be based on a lie" ?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 10:10:03 BDT
"Going by your criteria, so could the Norman Conquest."
1) The Norman conquest is the type of thing we know to have happened and so requires less evidence to beb believed
2) The norman conquest is evidenced in accounts from multiple places, multiple viewpoints, multiple types of record, as well as archaeological evidence. Far more evidence than the resurrection.
Yes, there is some mythology in the accounts, fableslike the arrow in the eye might be. Yes there are some conflicts.
3) My point was that the account given is very consistent with accounts of people who have witnessed and believed a fraud.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 10:41:32 BDT
DB 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 26 Apr 2012 10:52:18 BDT
"So the people who wrote down the events of the Norman Conquest, Battle of Hastings etc, all told the truth"
Where did I say that?

"but the people who wrote down the events of the resurrection must be liars,"
Where did I say that?

"1) It doesn't fit in with your world view"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mundane claims, mundane evidence. If I told you I had a 6th finger, you would be more warranted to believe me than if I told you I had 6 heads.

"2) The books written by different people give 'multiple viewpoints' of it. (As do the versions written of the norman conquest and other events throughout history)"
No, I was talking about the fact that the weight and variety of evidence for the Norman conquest is greater.

"you can use them to say 'fraud'."
I said fraud was a possibility. Not that I though Fraud was most likely, or I believed it was Fraud.

"But if anyone uses the same sequence of events and calls it proof of the resurrection, then you refute the events as 'mythology'."
No, I tell the pwerson they have no idea what the word proof means and point out that the 4 records of the resurrection that we have are very limited evidence for such an extraordinary event, and that such things as mistaken testimony, or fraud are also possibilities.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 10:53:02 BDT
C. A. Small says:
DB- did you actually read RDG's post?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 11:12:52 BDT
DB 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 26 Apr 2012 11:15:54 BDT
It's a worthwhile question DB, you seem to be displaying a lack of comprehension of posts across two threads.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 11:24:28 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Db " grown ups", yes RDG and I are on here, but you- oh the irony.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 11:34:36 BDT
richard says:
Rd,

the theory i like best concerns Caiaphas. fearing that Jesus' body might be used as a focal point for the Jesus movement he puts into effect a plan to defuse and get them out of Jerusalem without further bloodshed. the priests put themselves in charge of the security of the burial site and Pilate 'lent' them guards to guard the tomb. Mark says (a young man) and Matthew (an angel) in white tells the women that Jesus has risen and gone to Galilee. Luke and John report two figures/angels in the tomb chamber. so Caiaphas might have bribed the guards and his priests taken the body with one or two of them staying behind to tell the first visitors that Jesus had risen and gone to Galilee.

i think this presents a simple and plausible explanation for what might have occurred; Jesus dies on the cross, the priests take control of the body security, Jesus followers are traumatised and go into hiding, Caiaphas arranges body removal from tomb and story for whoever turns up. the 'young' priests dressed in white robes become angels with the retelling of the story and various sightings and interactions are added later for reasons i doubt we'll ever be sure about but i see no reason why the Disciples might not have believed Jesus had risen from being told and given the state they must have been in (having seen their teacher tortured and horribly killed and likely in fear of them being next) confused and susceptible to suggestion and explanation. the disciples head off to Galilee and no doubt the topic of conversation is what it all means and trying to reconcile the things Jesus said with scripture and what just happened in Jerusalem. i wonder if this wasn't where claim to secret teachings first appeared or whether that happened later as separate proto-Christian communities tried to assert authority over others?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 20:11:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Apr 2012 20:13:29 BDT
OW - "1) The Norman conquest is the type of thing we know to have happened and so requires less evidence to be believed"

So what about Troy and Mycenae before Schliemann?

"3) My point was that the account given is very consistent with accounts of people who have witnessed and believed a fraud"

There were undoubtedly half-truths and misinterpretations involved, but does this invalidate the whole story of the occurrence, like saying that, because the story of the JFK assassination was all a big cover-up, then Kennedy was never really assassinated?
In a court of law, one does not normally throw out all the testimony because of discrepancies between witnesses, but only if no satisfactory consensus can be reached. With regard to the crucifixion, there has been a major consensus for centuries, but there remain difficulties in the explanation of details and, unfortunately, we can no longer recall the witnesses, even if we knew just who they were.
Should the baby really be thrown out with the bathwater?

"The Crucifixion by an Eye-Witness", even if it is a modern fabrication, provides a consistent and plausible explanation for the events described.

The Apocrypha provide additional material to confirm the biblical accounts as well as a lot of pure fantasy. Whenever I read the stories of the Infancy of the Saviour, I envision Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice struggling to control super-human powers and having enormous difficulties with anger management! Happily, he is always able to undo the damage, bringing the victims back to life! Some of the stories seem to have come straight out of the Arabian Nights! lol :-)

Posted on 26 Apr 2012 21:28:05 BDT
F Cadell says:
The less challenging is the history, then the less it is contested.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 22:26:32 BDT
You'll have to tell me about the book, there are no reviews and I have never heard of it.

The apocryphal gospels are apocryphal for a reason - most of them date over a century after the crucifixion. Written by people who could not possibly have been alive at the time of crucifixion and with no possibility of contradiction of anyone around at the time.

What 'tradition and non-biblical accounts' - If I recall correctly it would have been a standard T shape with a pole attached to the top with a plaque on it stating the reasons for crucifixion (King of the Jews).

The purpose of the spear thrust, I am given to understand, is to ensure that a person is not faking it. Thrust into the body towards the heart, a soldier who knew their business isn't going to make a prick in the skin and then assume death!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 22:30:03 BDT
Actually your original post says *and*, but in the context it is *or*.

Still doesn't answer the question - how does one know which one it is? Surely it is a matter of faith if one assumes either position to be true.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 22:30:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Apr 2012 22:31:01 BDT
Yes, else I wouldn't be asking and you wouldn't be avoiding.
[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
153 27 Aug 2014
Consciousness 258 3 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 859 3 hours ago
Has the Gay agenda succedeed it's deception?. 4560 3 hours ago
10 reasons a benevolent deity doesn't exist. 359 3 hours ago
The evidence for God is overwhelming, those who perish misinterpret it 7893 4 hours ago
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoðan's vile views on women 1 4 hours ago
On Ebola 2975 7 hours ago
Going off at a tangent and honesty 306 7 hours ago
Despite dishonest misrepresentations to the contrary, atheists are at least as moral as theists. 71 9 hours ago
Evidence, Scientific method and epistemology. 967 9 hours ago
A Challenge to Atheists: What is your Coherent View or Vision of Reality... without Almighty God? (2) 4083 10 hours ago
 

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