Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1201-1225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012, 22:53:20 BST
Radcliffe - this is such a pessimistic worldview - 'everybody lies' (House).

Rather than assuming the worst, why not start by assuming the truth and gradually whittling away the untruths that surround - it is known as investigation.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012, 22:57:06 BST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012, 22:58:37 BST
Hitler either suppressed or killed those that questioned him (night of the long knives). There is no evidence that Jesus did that, or is that your contention?

Wayne

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 00:20:31 BST
Shakepen says:
CA: I thought public confessions went away with Mao!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 00:23:59 BST
Shakepen says:
CA: Just a point of clarification. Everyone keeps talking about the Bronze Age, but wasn't the Iron Age about 1300-1200 BCE? If so, then most of the Bible was written in the Iron Age.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 04:47:44 BST
Wayne,

That's not investigation. If you start by assuming the the truth, there's no point in doing anything else because you've assumed the conclusion.

You start with something unknown and begin with "I don't know the answer". You then investigate and compare the results against reality. You then come to a conclusion based upon what best matches reality. That tentative conclusion is the answer, and not an assumed one.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 04:53:39 BST
Wayne,

The problem with that is, how do you differentiate between a 'miraculous' suspension of natural law and an example of something happening that is simply outside our current understanding of natural law?
Our understanding of the natural law could be incomplete, or just wrong, and so the 'miracle' would actually be further naturalistic data rather than 'evidence' of a deity or other such being.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 05:00:10 BST
Ford Prefect says:
"why not start by assuming the truth and gradually whittling away the untruths that surround - it is known as investigation"

Please tell me that you mis-typed this! If not a mistake, please guarantee that you will never, ever, do jury service.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 05:13:26 BST
Ford Prefect says:
Jesus losing it in the temple with the moneylenders?
Predicting that his 'way' would cause conflict and suffering?
Luke 19:26-27, hardly a recipe for peaceful coexistence with the unbelievers?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 08:17:26 BST
C. A. Small says:
WDB- I am unaware of Hitler personally killing anyone. But you miss the point, deliberately, I suspect.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 08:19:07 BST
C. A. Small says:
Shakepen, I think it more depends on what part of the world you are in for the iron/bronze/stone age dates- I could be wrong- there is probably a history whizz on here somewhere!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 08:22:25 BST
C. A. Small says:
Wayne- you are not a member of C.I.D. I hope. That is the worst description of investigation I have ever read. But it does explain why you believe what you do.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 08:23:47 BST
C. A. Small says:
WDB; You have evaded the point, why do you believe uncheckable ignorant ancients over more modern witnesses?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:37:47 BST
Fair enough - the point is that you do some kind of investigation - not assume that nothing is true.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:42:16 BST
Back to Clarke's Third Law, then?

You don't have to assume that it is a miracle just because there is no natural explanation, but equally you can't assume that a natural explanation will be forthcoming just because you want one.

How do you explain the resurrection given the evidence available or do you say it is not a miracle, but we just haven't been able to explain it yet (despite 2,000 years of trying).

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:44:11 BST
As with Sam, fair point.

The problem is that Radcliffes methodology is no worse - we cannot be certain that Harold Shipman murdered tons of innocent people because history has no truth.

Wayne

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:45:07 BST
C. A. Small says:
WD B; how do I explain the resurrection?- easy, it never happened.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:46:09 BST
CAS,

What more modern witnesses? How many modern witnesses do you know to the resurrection of Jesus?

Contemporary witnesses to an event are needed, not modern ones.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:47:53 BST
C. A. Small says:
WDB- there are no contemporary witnesses to any of the biblical events. The gospels are heresay, and amended hearsay at that.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012, 17:50:44 BST
Wayne,

What has Clarke's Third Law got to do with my post? I didn't suggest advanced technology as an explanation, did I?

I was saying that you couldn't tell the difference between a temporary suspension of natural law and a natural occurance that falls outside our current understanding.

I don't need to explain the resurrection. It hasn't been shown to have happened.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012, 09:14:42 BST
"How do you explain the resurrection given the evidence available "
1) A possible explanation that appeals to me having just read this section of the four gospels again is that Joseph or Arimathea wasin on it. People were surprised Jesus was dead so soon and Joseph took the body away and placed it in an unused tomb very quickly. OR did he? Did Jesus just walk away, having not died on the cross? Let down by some ardent supporters?
2) Jesus died and stayed dead.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012, 09:49:34 BST
RDG - "How do you explain the resurrection given the evidence available "

3) Another explanation supported by many Muslims is that it was not Jesus who died on the cross, but a last-minute look-alike substitute. This would explain the hurry to get him down and safely hidden away.

It should be remembered that devout Jews would avoid contact with a corpse at the best of times and especially on the eve of the most important festival of the year, for they would require lengthy purification and be excluded from the festival (the defilement implicit in the story of the Good Samaritan). If the Jewish men took him down from the cross instead of leaving this to the Roman soldiers, this suggests that they knew he was not dead.

Pontius Pilate did not believe that Jesus deserved to die and, reading between the lines, could even have been complicit in keeping him alive. He didn't want to make a martyr of him. It is remarkable that Pilate is or has been regarded as a saint in some parts of the world. Why would he be seen this way?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012, 10:33:24 BST
Hadn't considered that one. There could easily be duplicity within the accounts we have. People are very easy to fool. But ultimately, even if we could prove with 100% certainty that the authors of the gospels and any other texts referring to the resurrection had all seen what they claimed to have seena dn fully believed it to be true. It still wouldn't give any strong reason for believing that Jesus died and was resurrected.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012, 22:06:15 BST
And your evidence for this is....?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012, 22:08:24 BST
But how do you know if something is 'a temporary suspension of natural law and a natural occurance that falls outside our current understanding'?
[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
170 1 day ago
Atheists 101 28 minutes ago
Worldwide troll association official post forum. 126 15 hours ago
Gas Bag 862 16 hours ago
Religion and Science 359 1 day ago
Discover Magazine article ("Earth's Water Is Older Than The Sun') matches the Bible book of Genesis 413 1 day ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 1447 1 day ago
Can you accept that Man is greater than God? 204 1 day ago
Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s? 104 1 day ago
If you have ever had negative thoughts about Yahweh, you are close to a Gnostic Christian. 25 2 days ago
"Transgender" folk accepted into the Anglican Church... 207 5 days ago
A question to atheists who care enough about organised religion to have a strong opinion of the existance of god/gods 684 12 days 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