Are you happy that jesus died for you?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 161 through 180 (of 197 total)

←1 2 3…8910 →

Author
Posts

August 5, 2010 at 11:25 am#207808

bodhitharta

Participant

Francis,

There is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible and Quran. No Scholar or Historian can show much about Jesus nor was much of anything was written by historians of that day even it the Bible itself there seems to be confusion of whether it was a Cross or a tree or a stake.

The gospels were not even written in the tongue of its authors, none of the disciples were greek and none of the gospels were translated from Aramaic and were all written well after the fact. The Quran supports all of the Christian ideas of Jesus but it clarifies the facts.

But history beyond the Bible and Quran you cannot find any strong sources about Jesus and considering the miraculous nature of the things Jesus had done you would think there would be CLEAR evidence in all historical writings of that time and there are not.

August 5, 2010 at 5:38 pm#207854

francis

Participant

Hello Anasa…

Quote

Francis,

Thanks for replying. Unfortunately… from my point of view… it appears that much of what you wrote above is either factually untrue or irrelevant to the topic of whehter Jesus died or not.

So let's go thru each of your statements together:

1)… The first thing you write is to say: There is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible and Quran. You even emphasized the word “NO” by capitilizing it. But then further on you make the following statements:

—> “No Scholar or Historian can show much about Jesus nor was much of anything was written by historians of that day”

and…

—> “But history beyond the Bible and Quran you cannot find any strong sources about Jesus”

Both of these statements completely contradict your first opening statement.

It is a logical contradiction to first say that there is “NO” evidence outside of the Bible… and yet also say that NO historians can show MUCH about Jesus. Even if we grant your opinion (which I don't, and neither do the historians)… to say first there is NO evidence… and then to say there is a little we can know… shows that these two statements of yours are a logical contradiction. Because you are SAYING that even though NO evidence exists… yet historians can show at least a little about Jesus. The word “much” is opposite of “little”.

This contradiction also applies to your other statement where you say that with history beyond the Bible we cannot find any strong sources about Jesus. But can't you see that whether the evidence is strong or weak, you are now saying that we can indeed find some evidence about Jesus.. which clearly contradicts your opening statement that there are NO historical facts about Jesus outside fo the Bible.
—————-

2)… Your opening statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible is completely and demonstrably false.

The vast majority of scholars in the study of biblical history believe there are many historical facts which can be established about Jesus and early Christians and Christianity using many kinds of documentary and other evidences. Not only do we have the New Testament documents (which you apparantly won't accept as a source of historical facts)… we have earlier, no longer extant independent sources which the Gospels are based on… we have statements from the early Church Fathers… we have brief references in histories produced decades later by pagans and Jewish sources… we have gnostic documents and texts… we have early Christian creeds… and we have Greco-Roman sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger which point to an historical Jesus. All of this is outside of the Bible.
———————

3)… Your statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible shows that you do not understand how historians work or the methodologies these historians use to determine what is an historical fact and what they use as historical documents. Your statement also makes the incrediblr presumption that the Bible cannot be critically and objectively used as historical documents by historians to glean historical facts from.

The fact is that many atheists and non-Christians have been able to use the above sources together with the NT documents to glean many historical facts and nuggets about Jesus. Atheists and agnostics and non-Christians like Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner. Other authors such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy as can be seen by their work in the Jesus Seminar.

And then we have the atheist Robin Lane Fox, an eminent classical historian from England. He is so well respected as a classical historian, that Hollywood used him as an expert for the movie ALEXANDER. In his massive book called “Pagans and Christians”, Fox describes it as a historian's view of the Bible. He says it is a book about evidence and historical truth, not about faith.

This atheist Robin Lane Fox… this revered and eminent classical historian respected around the world… dates the crucifixion and death of Jesus to the year 36.
—————–

3a)… Your statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible shows that you don't understand the historical methdology which secular historians use to judge what parts of a document are historically reliable. And I want to go over this a bit with you.

The Gospels were intended to be written as history. The Gospels claim they are writing about the life and death of Jesus… and the events and ministry surrounding Jesus. As such, a historian will look at the Gospels like they do with all secular manuscripts and documents which were intended to be written as history.

When historians come across documents purporting to be historical accounts, they have worked out a number of objective rules which they then apply to the sources (secular or not) in an attempt to establish whether the documents they are analyzing are historically credible accounts as opposed to mere fiction. These rules are called “the criteria of authenticity” and some of them are “multiple attestation”… “the principle of dissimilarity”… “the criterion of embarrassment”… and early dating. The earlier and closer to the event which the documents are describing, the better for the historian.

There are other criteria as well. In fact, there’s a long list of them, but these are just a few. Historians apply them all the time to secular narratives and documents with a view towards establishing their historical credibility. And with the Bible (and with the life of Jesus), critical historians will add even more criterion… such as “dissimilarity to Christian teaching”… linguistic semitisms… traces of Palestinian milieu… coherence with other authentic material, and so forth.

All this is done in an effort to glean historical facts from whatever documents they are looking at… secular or religious. And with the Bible, the critical historians are not even assuming the general reliability of the Gospels when they are establishing specific facts about Jesus. The historians will strip out all the miracles from the Biblical documents… all apparant contradictions… and any material that appears to be mistakes or false.

Why? Because critical historians and atheists like Richard Carrier believe that there is no ancient history that is entirely accurate and without lies, distortions
, or errors. The atheist Richard Carrier says that every qualified historian agrees with that. It is a universal principle accepted throughout the professional community that no ancient work is infallible. Richard Carrier points out that even the best of ancient historians, such as Tacitus, Polybius, and Arrian, convey false information, and even the work of historians like Herodotus and Seutonius, who don't measure up the high standards of these authors… they still provide valuable historical information with respect to specific events.

Do you see that? The Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate (I believe it is) for historians to be able to glean historical facts from it. Historians find all kinds of historical facts in falliable and flawed historical documents.

So even though I personally believe tha the Bible is true in everything it teaches, it doesn't have to be for the historians to find facts about Jesus. And one of those facts which is almost universally agreed upon by scholars… even among atheists like Robin Lane Fox… is that Jesus died by crucifixion.
—————–

4)…

Quote

…the Bible itself there seems to be confusion of whether it was a Cross or a tree or a stake

This is irrelevant and does not rebut the historical fact that Jesus did by crucifixion. And like I stated above, the Bible doesn't have to perfect and infallible for historians to find facts. And one of those facts is that Jesus died by crucifixion… whether it was on a cross, tree, or a stake.
——————–

5)…

Quote

The gospels were not even written in the tongue of its authors, none of the disciples were greek and none of the gospels were translated from Aramaic and were all written well after the fact.

This is also irrelevent because the historians take all this into account and were still able to establish the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.
———————-

6)…

Quote

And this is irrelevant also because I'm not arguing about any miracles here. The death of Jesus by crucifixion is not a miraculous event. So this statement by yours does nothing to rebut that historical fact.
————————–

Asana… earlier I had asked you what would it mean for your belief if it could be demonstrated that the proposition that Jesus died and was then Resurrected… was far more logical and reasonable than the proposition that He did not die and thus was not bodily Resurrected?
And you answered and said: “I would have to change the way I believe but keep in mind that I had already believed that but had always found it to be illogical I accepted it because I was taught it…”

Well, we haven't gotten to the resurrection part yet… but I've gone to great lengths to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died by Crucifixion. This is even accepted by many atheists so that there is a near uniminous agreement that Jesus did die by Crucifixion.

Do you have any evidence… any neutral evidence… which you can show us which supports your belief that Jesus never died?
Respectfully
Francis

August 5, 2010 at 9:24 pm#207874

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 06 2010,04:38)

Hello Francis

Quote

So let's go thru each of your statements together:

—> “No Scholar or Historian can show much about Jesus nor was much of anything was written by historians of that day”

and…

—> “But history beyond the Bible and Quran you cannot find any strong sources about Jesus”

Both of these statements completely contradict your first opening statement.

There is no contradiction first I used the word EVIDENCE secondly I stated NOT MUCH was even mentioned in any any historical document OUTSIDE of the Bible or Quran

Quote

It is a logical contradiction to first say that there is “NO” evidence outside of the Bible… and yet also say that NO historians can show MUCH about Jesus.

No logical contradiction at all it is a supporting statement to say No Evidence and not much material to get any evidence it would be like saying in a murder There is no evidence and not much DNA to even make a match.

For instance there is absolutely no record of this crucifixion outside of the Bible and Rome was a highly civilized record keeping empire. This doesn't mean it did or didn't happen just that there is no CLEAR record of it.

But don't misunderstand my point I believe they thought they killed Jesus but the fact is they didn't kill him nor did they crucify him.

Quote

Even if we grant your opinion (which I don't, and neither do the historians)… to say first there is NO evidence… and then to say there is a little we can know… shows that these two statements of yours are a logical contradiction. Because you are SAYING that even though NO evidence exists… yet historians can show at least a little about Jesus. The word “much” is opposite of “little”.

The evidence of Jesus existing is not in question, the evidence of him being crucified is in question and by the way whether you believe that Jesus was taken up alive as I do or I believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected and then taken up as you do, how could there be any EVIDENCE outside of the Bible or Quran
anyway because either way there is no “body”

Quote

Of course I accept the NT as a source as I have already stated

Quote

we have earlier, no longer extant independent sources which the Gospels are based on.

If they are not in existence it cannot be evidence

Quote

.. we have statements from the early Church Fathers… we have brief references in histories produced decades later by pagans and Jewish sources… we have gnostic documents and texts… we have early Christian creeds…

You also have some text that say that the crucifixion never happened such as the gospel of barnabas

Read:

And the soldiers came before him, bowing down in mockery, saluting him as King of the Jews. And they held out their hands to receive gifts, such as new kings are accustomed to give; and receiving nothing they smote Judas, saying: 'Now, how are you crowned, foolish king, if you will not pay your soldiers and servants?' *The chief priests with the scribes and Pharisees, seeing that Judas died not by the scourges, and fearing lest Pilate should set him at liberty, made a gift of money to the governor, who having received it gave Judas to the scribes and Pharisees as guilty to death. Whereupon they condemned two robbers with him to the death of the cross.

So they led him to Mount Calvary, where they used to hang malefactors, and there they crucified him naked;, for the greater ignominy. *Judas truly did nothing else but cry out: 'God, why have you forsaken me, seeing the malefactor has escaped and I die unjustly?' *Truly I say that the voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the doctrine of Jesus, believing that Jesus had been a false prophet, and that by art magic he had done the miracles which he did: for Jesus had said that he should not die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he should be taken away from the world.

But they that stood firm in the doctrine of Jesus were so encompassed with sorrow, seeing him die who was entirely like to Jesus, that they remembered not what Jesus had said. And so in company with the mother of Jesus they went to Mount Calvary, and were not only present at the death of Judas, weeping continually, but by means of Nicodemus and Joseph of Abarimathia; they obtained from the governor the body of Judas to bury it. Whereupon, they took him down from the cross with such weeping as assuredly no one would believe, and buried him in the new sepulchre of Joseph; having wrapped him up in an hundred pounds of precious ointments.

http://barnabas.net/chapters/265.html?task=view

In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.

In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and
450. Antwerp 1698) . The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.

Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend, Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra Marino was interested because he had read the writings of Iranaeus where Barnabas had been profusely quoted. The Italian manuscript passed through different hands till it reached “a person of great name and authority” in Amsterdam, “who during his life time was often heard to put a high value to this piece”. After his death it came in the possession of J. E. Cramer, a Councillor of the King of Prussia. In 1713 Cramer presented this manuscript to the famous connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 along with the library of the Prince it found its way into Hofbibliothek in Vienna. There it now rests.

http://barnabas.net/how-the-gospel-of-barnabas-survived.html

There are other “gospels” as well that deny the crucifixion.

Quote

and we have Greco-Roman sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger which point to an historical Jesus. All of this is outside of the Bible.

Not to a crucifixion of JESUS CHRIST

Quote

———————

Once again I said “Outside the Bible or Quran” and apparently the Gospel of Barnabas which I just read a bit of

Quote

This atheist Robin Lane Fox… this revered and eminent classical historian respected around the world… dates the crucifixion and death of Jesus to the year 36.

Yes and others put the date at April 3, 33AD
or April 7, 30 CE

Quote

—————–

You can't use the gospels as an outside source they are an inside source

Quote

Do you see that? The Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate

Isn't that what I have been saying the entire time?

Quote

(I believe it is) for historians to be able to glean historical facts from it. Historians find all kinds of historical facts in falliable and flawed historical documents.

Exactly.

Quote

It appeared to them to be true

Quote

—————–

4)…

Quote

…the Bible itself there seems to be confusion of whether it was a Cross or a tree or a stake

Or it simply seemed to have occured, right?

Sura #4

156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;
157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Quote

“but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- ”

Quote

Do you have any evidence… any neutral evidence… which you can show us which supports your belief that Jesus never died?

Only the fact that it would not have served a purpose of God and the Quran states that God saved Jesus from the cross other than that there would be nothing but conjecture as you have provided.

If Jesus did die then he would have made a false prophecy which would have been when he said:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:27-28

God Bless!

August 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm#207884

Ed J

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 06 2010,04:38)

Hello Anasa…

Thanks for replying. Unfortunately… from my point of view… it appears that much of what you wrote above is either factually untrue or irrelevant to the topic of whehter Jesus died or not.

So let's go thru each of your statements together:

—> “No Scholar or Historian can show much about Jesus nor was much of anything was written by historians of that day”

and…

—> “But history beyond the Bible and Quran you cannot find any strong sources about Jesus”

Both of these statements completely contradict your first opening statement.

2)… Your opening statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible is completely and demonstrably false.

This atheist Robin Lane Fox… this revered and eminent classical historian respected around the world… dates the crucifixion and death of Jesus to the year 36.
—————–

Why? Because critical historians and atheists like Richard Carrier believe that there is no ancient history that is entirely accurate and without lies, distortions, or errors. The atheist Richard Carrier says that every qualified historian agrees with that. It is a universal principle accepted throughout the professional community that no ancient work is infallible. Richard Carrier points out that even the best of ancient historians, such as Tacitus, Polybius, and Arrian, convey false information, and even the work of historians like Herodotus and Seutonius, who don't measure up the high standards of these authors… they still provide valuable historical information with respect to specific events.

So even though I personally believe
tha the Bible is true in everything it teaches, it doesn't have to be for the historians to find facts about Jesus. And one of those facts which is almost universally agreed upon by scholars… even among atheists like Robin Lane Fox… is that Jesus died by crucifixion.
—————–

4)…

Quote

…the Bible itself there seems to be confusion of whether it was a Cross or a tree or a stake

5)…

Quote

The gospels were not even written in the tongue of its authors, none of the disciples were greek and none of the gospels were translated from Aramaic and were all written well after the fact.

This is also irrelevent because the historians take all this into account and were still able to establish the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.
———————-

6)…

Quote

Do you have any evidence… any neutral evidence… which you can show us which supports your belief that Jesus never died?
Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

Excellent work; and Good!
Jesus was indeed Crucified,
we also know “God The Father”
raised Jesus back to life! (Gal.1:1)

Your Brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 6, 2010 at 9:03 pm#207949

francis

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

Francis:
“Both of these statements completely contradict your first opening statement.”[/i]

Asana:
You aThere is no contradiction first I used the word EVIDENCE secondly I stated NOT MUCH was even mentioned in any any historical document OUTSIDE of the Bible or Quran

Your opening statement said NO historical facts outside of the Bible and the Quran. You then responded with “NOT MUCH was even mentioned in any any historical document OUTSIDE of the Bible or Quran.”

The word NO does not equal the words NOT MUCH. They have opposite meanings. NOTMUCH means something… no matter how little. The word NO means nothing at all… it does not even mean a little amount.. it means nothing whatsoever.

Thus it is a contradiction.

Quote

Francis:
It is a logical contradiction to first say that there is “NO” evidence outside of the Bible… and yet also say that NO historians can show MUCH about Jesus.

Asana:
No logical contradiction at all it is a supporting statement to say No Evidence and not much material to get any evidence it would be like saying in a murder There is no evidence and not much DNA to even make a match.

First of all, you never said the word “evidence” in the post I was responding to. You said the words “Historical facts”. I would gently encourage you to read again what you wrote on Aug. 05 2010… at 22:25. The word “evidence” is never used by you. So right away we see that you appear to be trying to change what you actually wrote.

Secondly… Since you and I were using the same words… the words “historical facts”… then it stands to reason that ANY material we do find… are HISTORICAL FACTS… no matter how weak, or slim.. or little material there might be to begin with. So the contradiction I pointed out still stands. Now… I know that you are a good person, and I know that you realize it is wrong to move the goal posts in the middle of a conversation.

If you honestly feel that you MEANT to say “evidence” in the context you are now using it, then you should say that you misspoke and MEANT to say “evidence”… and not “historical facts”.

Having said that though, I do believe there is much evidence outside of the Bible about Jesus.. and also for the resurrection. And I already listed them in my prior post… and will do so again during this post.

By the way… and this is important… the fact that you keep wanting to assert that there is no “evidence” for the death of Jesus outside of the Bible only shows what I've already stated before… and that is you do not understand how historians work. There is enough “evidence” for the death of Jesus, that the VAST MAJORITY of critical scholars and historians (atheists and believers) agree that the Jesus did die by crucifixtion.

Even if I were to play “devil's advocate” for a moment and say it was true that there was no evidence outside of the Bible for the death of Jesus by crucifixion (which is not true because there is a lot of evidence)… this is completely irrelevant according to Historians who use the historical methodology. So you're statement is not only factually untrue, but your statement is also irrelevent as far as critical historians/scholars are concerned.

Quote

First of all, there are records of Jesus crucifixion outside of the Bible and I had already listed them for you. But i will do so again.

Secondly… Rome was apparantly good at keeping records.. but unfortunately, THE VAST MAJORITY of those records don't exist anymore. Why? It's for the very same reasons that the original Gospels also do not exist… and for the reason that VERY, VERY LITTLE of any original written material exsists from the ancient past. Because it became destroyed due to various factors… the major one due to the elements of weather. Rome didn't hide their records in little clay jars inside of a cave where it was completely dry and arrid so as to preserve their records like the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved.

The fact is, the vast majority of what we know about Rome does not come from it's records directly, but indirectly from historians like Tacitus who wrote ABOUT what the records said…. 100's of years after the fact.
—————–

Here is a very brief record of extra-biblical writings which mentions the death of Jesus:

Cornelilus Tacitus (condsidered to be the greatest Roman Historian of his time)… Celsus (Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity)… Lucian of Samosata ( a Greek satirist and rhetorician who scornfully describes his views of early Christianity)… Mara Bar-Serapion of Syria… Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (using the Arabic manuscript and not the disputed one which everyone debates)… The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a during the Tannaitic period)… Toledoth Jesu… Gnostic writings like: The Gospel of Truth… the parable in The Gospel of Thomas(45:1 16)… The Treatise On Resurrection… lost works that have been preserved in the writings of others like: Acts of Pontius Pilate (preserved thru the writings of Justin Martyr and Tertullian)… Phlegon (preserved thru the writings of Origen)… early church leaders and “fathers” like: Clement of Rome… Ignatius of Antioch… Quadratus of Athens… Aristides the Athenian… Justin Martyr… Hegesippus… AND the early creedal evidence like: Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 11:26; 1 Cor 15:3-4; Rom 4:25; Phil 2:8; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Pet 3:18, along with the Acts sermon summaries (2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3, 30-31 in particular). All of these creedal texts are early and existed before the Gospels and the other writings of NT were written, with some having been around since 30AD.

All of the above are extra-biblical writings. And these have to do with the death of Jesus. Add to this mix the Gospels… and we see that there is overwhelming evidence for the death of Jesus… which is why there is a near unaminous agreement among critical scholars (atheists and believers) that Jesus did die of Crucifixion.

As for your claim that “But history beyond the Bible and Quran you cannot find any strong sources about Jesus”… this is just factually untrue.

The extra-biblical information I gave above is just for the crucifixion of Jesus. But if we want to know more about Jesus than just the crucifixion, I could add a lot more ancient extra biblical sources. Even if we leave out the creedal texts I mentioned above, we find that when the combined evidence from the other ancient sources is summarized, quite an impressive amount of information is gathered concerning Jesus and ancient Christianity. And that information actually covers the main highlights of Jesus' life and of ancient Christianity. And this is apart from using the New Testament.

So I think it is very clear that you are very mistaken when you suggest that we cannot kno
w much about Jesus or Christianity apart from the Bible.
——————–

Quote

But don't misunderstand my point I believe they thought they killed Jesus but the fact is they didn't kill him nor did they crucify him.

The historians disagree with you. The evidence disputes your claim. In fact, you've yet to present ANY evidence whatsoever for your claim that Jesus did not die. You just assert it. Well… anyone can assert anything they want. For example… some people assert that we never landed on the moon. Some assert that the Holocaust never happened. Some assert that Elvis is still alive. Some assert that the eath is really flat and not a globe at all. Etc.

I've made the claim that it is a historical fact that Jesus died, and brought evidence to the table. You've made the claim that Jesus did not die, and yet you have not brought any evidence to the table.

Quote

Francis:
Even if we grant your opinion (which I don't, and neither do the historians)… to say first there is NO evidence… and then to say there is a little we can know… shows that these two statements of yours are a logical contradiction. Because you are SAYING that even though NO evidence exists… yet historians can show at least a little about Jesus. The word “much” is opposite of “little”.

Asana:
The evidence of Jesus existing is not in question, the evidence of him being crucified is in question and by the way whether you believe that Jesus was taken up alive as I do or I believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected and then taken up as you do, how could there be any EVIDENCE outside of the Bible or Quran anyway because either way there is no “body”

First of all… I am only dealing with your belief that Jesus did not die. That has been my entire focus during the last couple of posts of mine.

I would gently encourage you to look again at what I wrote on Aug. 05 2010 at 09:02:

“Well, if that is the case, then we should be talking about the issue of whether Jesus actually died or not on the cross. Correct? If you agree, then I'm going to amend what I've been writing at home, and go with that angle.”

And this on Aug. 05 2010 at 09:24:

“So as I understand it… the topic between you and I is the issue of whether Jesus actually died on the cross or not.”

Secondly… the evidence I have been giving you was to show that in spite of what you have been claiming all along, the fact is that we can know a lot about Jesus and his ministry and of ancient Christianity using nothing more than extra-biblical documents. You had claimed that we cannot… and I showed that we can.

Thirdly… you're question above about “how could there be any EVIDENCE outside of the Bible or Quran anyway because either way there is no “body”? is irrelevent to the present discussion we are having of whether Jesus died or not. Above, I showed and explained what my focus was going to be on. This can be found in my posts which were posted on Aug, 5, 2010 at 9:02 and 9:24.

Quote

Francis:
The vast majority of scholars in the study of biblical history believe there are many historical facts which can be established about Jesus and early Christians and Christianity using many kinds of documentary and other evidences. Not only do we have the New Testament documents (which you apparantly won't accept as a source of historical facts)…

Asana:
Of course I accept the NT as a source as I have already stated

And that's great. But then why were you trying to create the impression that we couldn't find many historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible? In fact, you actually said we could find NO historical facts outside of the Bible.

Secondly… if you accept the NT as a source, why do you claim that Jesus did not die? What evidence from the NT do you use?

Quote

Francis:
we have earlier, no longer extant independent sources which the Gospels are based on.

Asana:
If they are not in existence it cannot be evidence

This here is a perfect example that shows that you do not understand how historians work or how they use the historical method. Historians realize that MOST of the original material written in the ancient past do not exist because of weather, fires, willfull destruction, etc. Even the Roman records you spoke of earlier do not exist in their original forums… but are preserved thru the writings of others who mention them or because we have late copies of them.

Historians recognize this reality. And so when we read a person talking about and even quoting from a source that no longer exists, the historians will accept that source as being a legitmate source. This is how ancient history works and how critical scholars work. So your objection is not professonally valid in the eyes of critical scholars and historians.

Quote

Francis:
.. we have statements from the early Church Fathers… we have brief references in histories produced decades later by pagans and Jewish sources… we have gnostic documents and texts… we have early Christian creeds…

Asana:
You also have some text that say that the crucifixion never happened such as the gospel of barnabas: (you then quoted some material from it which I did not put in here because of space)

Yes, and so? There are people who say that Jesus never existed, and yet the vast majority of historians and critical scholars say that Jesus did exist. You're always going to have people on the fringe saying things which most of the historians and scholars disagree with.

And so it is with the Gospel of Barnabas. The historians are not blind to this gnostic text. Part of the job of an historian is to sift thru all the various contradictory documents… weight the evidence on either side.. and then come to a conclusion. And like I keep saying, the VAST MAJORITY… the near unaminous consensous and agreement among critical scholars and historians is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Quote

Asana:
In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to d
eath.

In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.

In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698) . The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.

http://barnabas.net/how-the-gospel-of-barnabas-survived.html

There are other “gospels” as well that deny the crucifixion.

And i've already replied above. The historians all know this material. This is nothing new. They've spent many years studying the issue and have come to agreement that it is an historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion. Many atheists… who are not friends to Christians… also agree that Jesus died by crucifixion. And these are not fringe atheists either. These are well respected historians in their fields… and I gave you their names.

Quote

Francis:
and we have Greco-Roman sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger which point to an historical Jesus. All of this is outside of the Bible.

Asana:
Not to a crucifixion of JESUS CHRIST

I've give you the list above that do. I also gave you the consensuous of modern day historians (even among well respected historians who are non Christians) who agree that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Quote

Francis:
3)… Your statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible shows that you do not understand how historians work or the methodologies these historians use to determine what is an historical fact and what they use as historical documents. Your statement also makes the incrediblr presumption that the Bible cannot be critically and objectively used as historical documents by historians to glean historical facts from.

Asana:
Once again I said “Outside the Bible or Quran” and apparently the Gospel of Barnabas which I just read a bit of

I've already answered this above. Historians disagree with you. As I said before, you're disagreement is not with me or Christians… but it is with the historians.

Quote

Francis:
The fact is that many atheists and non-Christians have been able to use the above sources together with the NT documents to glean many historical facts and nuggets about Jesus. Atheists and agnostics and non-Christians like Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner. Other authors such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy as can be seen by their work in the Jesus Seminar.

This atheist Robin Lane Fox… this revered and eminent classical historian respected around the world… dates the crucifixion and death of Jesus to the year 36.

Asana:
Yes and others put the date at April 3, 33AD or April 7, 30 CE

Yes, and so? Robin Lane Fox wasn't saying that the date he came up with was a FACT. It was his opinion… and he offered it as such. What is important to this present discussion we are having is that this revered and eminent classical historian who is respected around the world… and who is an atheist… used his vast knowledge of ancient history to determine that it was an historical fact that Jesus died by Crucifixion.

Secondly… your above response does not rebut what I've been writing. How does a difference of opinion about WHEN Jesus died by crucifixion, demonstrate that Jesus DID NOT DIE by crucifixion? Can you see how that is illogical? Your above response is actually a red herring and a nonsequitur.

Quote

Francis:
3a)… Your statement that there is NO historical facts about Jesus outside of the Bible shows that you don't understand the historical methdology which secular historians use to judge what parts of a document are historically reliable. And I want to go over this a bit with you.

Asana:
You can't use the gospels as an outside source they are an inside source

This statement only proves what I just said.

First of all.. I had already dealt with the issue of whether there are extra-biblical sources that talks about Jesus' crucifixion… and I listed them.
Secondly… After doing that LONG BEFORE point 3a, I wanted to take the above statement of yours and show you something else about how historians work. And that is, very often, especially about ancient history, historians do not have a source outside of the source material they are examining. That is a fact.

What do they do in such a case? They use their heads and think logically and rationally and common sense… and from that, they derive the rules of historical methodology I had outlined for you previously. The bottom line is that this is a red herring on your part to even hint at the idea that we NEED outside sources of the bible to determine the general trustworthiness of the Bible… or to be able to glean from the Bible certain historical facts.

That is why I was covering point 3a above. I had already dealt with the issue of extra-biblical sources LONG BEFORE point 3a. Point 3a was used to show how historians work in the real world if they find themselves examining material which had no outside source for it.

Quote

Francis:
Do you see that? The Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate

Asana:
Isn't that what I have been saying the entire time?

And yet the historians are able to glean from imperfect, flawed, sometimes innaccurate material and documents… and glean from them certain historical facts. One of the historical facts which the VAST MAJORITY of critical scholars and historians have gleaned from the Bible is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Quote

Francis:
(I believe it is) for historians to be able to glean historical facts from it. Historians find all kinds of historical facts in falliable and flawed historical documents.

Asana:
Exactly.

And one of those historical facts which the historians have found in the Bible is that Jesus died by crucifixion. Even when they start with the assumption that the Bible is fallible and flawed. They STILL found that historical fact.

Quote

Francis:
So even though I personally believe tha the Bible is true in everything it teaches, it doesn't have to be for the historians to find facts about Jesus. And one of those facts which is almost universally agreed upon by scholars… even among atheists like Robin Lane Fox… is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Asana:
It appeared to them to be true

And what does that mean? Is that the extent of your evidence for your claim that Jesus did not die by crucifixion? How is this kind of answer and response from you an intelligent and rational one?

Asana… I believe with all of my heart that you are a good person and that you sincerely believe in your particular faith. But can't you see that if we used this kind of thinking and response of yours and apply to the rest of history, that it becomes absurd?

Why can't a person say that it ONLY appeared to Muhammed that he got the Quran from God? Or that it ONLY appears that we landed on the moon? Or that it ONLY appears that the holocaust happened? Or that it ONLY appears that the world is not flat? Or that it ONLY appears that you are alive? Or that is ONLY appears that you have been writing to me?

Can't you see how absurd things can get if that is all you have to offer in defense of your proposition that Jesus never tasted death? Either by Crucifixion or in any other manner?

Quote

Asana:
… the Bible itself there seems to be confusion of whether it was a Cross or a tree or a stake

Francis:
This is irrelevant and does not rebut the historical fact that Jesus did by crucifixion. And like I stated above, the Bible doesn't have to perfect and infallible for historians to find facts. And one of those facts is that Jesus died by crucifixion… whether it was on a cross, tree, or a stake.

Asana:
Or it simply seemed to have occured, right?

Sura #4: 156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; 157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

'
I've already answered this above. You have a book.. the Quran… written 600 years after the fact of Jesus existence here on earth. The fact you are willing to believe a book written 600 years after the event we are looking at.. .and give it more primacy than those documents written 500 years earlier and a LOT closer to the event we are looking at… only underscores that you do not understand how historians work and you have no regard for the historical method or the discipline of history.

It would be one thing if the Quran could at least supply some evidence to support it's claim made 600 years after the fact… but it doesn't. The Quran just says that it didn't happen.

Well… how is that any better than the Holocaust deniers saying (less than 100 years after WW2) that the Holocaust never happened?

You're a good person Asana… but you need to give more to work with, than just an unsupported assertion made in a book written 600 years after the fact.

Quote

Francis:
Asana… earlier I had asked you what would it mean for your belief if it could be demonstrated that the proposition that Jesus died and was then Resurrected… was far more logical and reasonable than the proposition that He did not die and thus was not bodily Resurrected?
And you answered and said: “I would have to change the way I believe but keep in mind that I had already believed that but had always found it to be illogical I accepted it because I was taught it…”

Asana:
“but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- ”

I've already dealt with this above.

Quote

Francis:
Do you have any evidence… any neutral evidence… which you can show us which supports your belief that Jesus never died?

Asana:
Only the fact that it would not have served a purpose of God and the Quran states that God saved Jesus from the cross other than that there would be nothing but conjecture as you have provided.

If Jesus did die then he would have made a false prophecy which would have been when he said:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:27-28

I have not been using conjecture. I've been using historical facts. I've been using evidence. I've been using the historical method which the Historians use. I've used the rules of evidence as used in by the best and most respected historians… even those who have nothing to personally gain for their findings… ones that are not friends to the Christians and so have nothing to gain from expressing their findings.

To die is not a miracle. To die by crucifixion is not a miracle. It is you who is making the miraculoous claim that Jesus never died in the first place. And so as rational people, it is you… not me… who has the bigger burden of proof to show us why anyone should believe your miracle claim that Jesus never died.

—>If the only so called “evidence” you can bring to the table is that Jesus' death “would not have served a purpose of God”… then maybe you don't understand the purpose of God.. or you have misunderstood the purpose of God.

What is
more difficult to believe? That Jesus never died? Or that you simply misunderstand the purpose of God?

—>If the only so called “evidence” you can bring to the table is that the Quran states that God saved Jesus from the Cross… then you're doing nothing better than a Christian who makes claims against you SIMPLY because of what the Bible says. How would you be any better than a Christian who says Mohammed is wrong or that you are wrong simply by quoting the Bible?

You're reduced your argument to a “he says… she says” argument. Nothing can be gained from such an argument.

—>If the only so called “evidence” you can bring to the table is to bring up Matthew 16:27-28 and suggest that this shows that Jesus did not die, because if He did, then this would have been a false prophecy… this only suffers from the exact same problem as the “purpose of God” argument you gave.

Maybe you just simply don't understand what the verse is saying in Matthew 16:27-28… or you have misunderstood Matthew 16:27-28.

What is more difficult to believe? That Jesus never died? That all the historians got it wrong? Or that you simply misunderstand Matthew 16:27-28?

What is more difficult to believe… that Matthew 16:27-28 contradicts the rest of the Bible? Or that you have misunderstood that verse?

I know what I think. And unless you can bring to the table neutral historical facts and evidence… then I all I can see happening is that in the end, it won't matter what evidence i can bring to our discussion… it won't matter to you in the long run.

But I hope I'm wrong. I think you are a good person and I prefer to give people the benefit of doubt and give them a chance to express themselves intelligently and impartially and objectively and rationally.

God Bless you Asana.

Respectfully
Francis

August 7, 2010 at 1:30 am#207955

bodhitharta

Participant

Francis,

Your argument is contradictory in itself as you claim the Quran is too far away from the occurence to bear weight then you give incredible weight to a modern day Atheist historian. Secondly, Historical mentions are not Facts or evidence they are only evidence of being mentioned.

There is no Orthodox Jew who would call Jesus the Messiah, In Jewish history no Messiah has come yet so according to you they must be correct in which case your argument for historians works against your own belief. Also if you could actually provide some of these “proof texts” it would be good as many that I have personally seen are not even specifically talking about Jesus instead there is “mention” of people like “Yeshu” which is not “Yeshua” and other references that one would have to already have the knowledge of Jesus to even presume it is about Jesus.

Also even to this day no historian can even give evidence of what actual day this happened some say Friday and some say Wednesday and Ignatious believes that Jesus died around 50 years old while most say 33.

Also most importantly most of the older “historical mentions” are based on hearsay but let us stop hear for a moment and get to a more serious subject.

How would even historical text be able to ascertain whether or not God saved Jesus from the cross? Now obviously if I study the Quran and believe its contents just as I believe the contents of the Bible then my belief would be based on a progressive revelation.

That means I would believe that Jesus was crucified and then with the further revelation of the Quran I would understand that God saved Jesus from being crucified now with that understanding it confirms to me that Jesus was in-fact plotted against to be crucified and they prepared to crucify him but the revelation explains that it simply never happened because God spared Jesus from crucifixion. Now look at the Jonah story and tell me wouldn't those people on the boat historically report that Jonah died from drowning because that is what they assumed to have occured but later it is revealed in the story that God saved Jonah from death.

Your argument based on secular history does not have a sound footing at all because as I have said in the context of Jewish history Jesus was a false prophet, a heretic and anything else but the Messiah and furthermore they also insist that historically according to their religion which Jesus was that he could not be qualified to even be Messiah. Now you pull Christian history out from Jewish history and try to give it independent meaning but your argument was for Historical views being valid views. also:

From Robert M. Price: Resurrection (1987)

“In early Judaism, from about 200 B.C. to 100 A.D., we find both that the resurrection doctrine has become widely (though by no means universally) held, and that there are many different versions of it. Texts vary over just who will rise, whether only the righteous, some or all of them, both the righteous and the wicked, etc. Will this rising be spiritual, or physical with the return of the very body that died, or rather transformation into a glorious angelic form, or first the mortal body which subsequently puts on immortality? And contra the oft-heard generalization, some Jews must even have entertained the notion of possible resurrections before the eschatological judgment, since John the Baptist was widely believed to have risen from the dead as a supernatural being with new miraculous powers (Mark 6:14), a belief which perhaps accounts for the tenacious belief in John's Messiahship which lasted into at least the fourth century.

The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul compares the general resurrection to that of Jesus and thus implies his conception of the latter. The risen Jesus “became a … Spirit” (v. 45). His was a spiritual, not a natural body (v. 44) and did not have flesh, since such is entirely unsuited to immortality (v. 50). The often overlooked passage 1 Peter 3:18 may assume the same understanding since it contrasts Jesus' death “in the body” with his resurrection “in the spirit.” The four gospels are later works, and their very different, materialistic idea of Jesus' resurrection may be later as well.”

The important point is that “The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15” a document written by Paul. The resurrection also was not unique to only Jesus but other clearly fictional examples of it occur as well i.e. (Mark 6:14 & Matthew 27:51-53). Likewise, the earliest attested form of belief in the “Crucifixion” of Jesus is also by Paul (Galatians 3:1). Hence, with no external evidence to the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus, the possibility is very high that it never occurred. Given the evolution in the resurrection accounts in the New Testament, from Paul's basic and relatively unadorned description of appearances (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to the glorious miraculous happenings and multiple resurrections of the later gospels, it should be clear that this was not a static belief. If Matthew's account of the dead rising from their graves and appearing to many was true (Matthew 27:51-53), then such a remarkable event would have been reported by historians such as Josephus who avidly recounted the exploits of the supposed miracle workers of those times. Josephus' father would have been a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged “crucifixion” (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection accounts contain much made up or embellished material.

DOES THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROVIDE “UNDENIABLE HISTORY” THAT A MAN NAMED JESUS EXISTED AND WAS CRUCIFIED?

Does the historical record confirm that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified? The answer is no. In fact atheists have an easy time even arguing that Jesus never existed. What modern scholars say: the renowned internationally recognized scholar Robert M Grant writes in his book, “A Historical Introduction To The New Testament”

Pg 290 Chapter 19

Jesus in Non-Christian Writings

Because the Christian movement arose within the Roman Empire and spread throughout it, from east to west, we should expect to find some notice taken of it by Greek and Roman writers. They ought to say something about Jesus and his influence. Such an expectation is clearly fulfilled only by four writers of the late first century and the early second; by the time of the anti-Christian writer Celsus (c. 178), nothing authentic about Jesus is preserved in non-Christian sources.

The four writers we have in mind are 1) the Hellenistic Jewish general and historian Josephus and the Roman officials 2) C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), 3) A. Cornelius Tacitus and 4) C. Tranquillus Suetonius. In dealing with each bit of information we must be just as critical as we should like to be in considering Christian statements. Each of these authors has his own axe or axes to grind; his attitude is not necessarily “objective” simply because he is not a Christian.

The words of Josephus are especially questionable, since we know that he was militantly opposed to apocalyptic movements which in his view had led to the disastrous war with Rome (66 -70); he himself became a devoted supporter of Rome and his work was subsidized by successive emperors. He included three passages bearing on Christian origins in his Antiquities, published about the year 93 (significantly, none of them is to be found in parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval). These three passages deal with (1) John the Baptist, (2) James the brother of Jesus, and (3) Jesus himself.

The passage about John the Baptist (18, 116-19) depic
ts him as a “teacher of righteousness” and makes no reference to his eschatological views. His baptism is portrayed as absolutely non-sacramental. The passage about James (20, 197-203) describes his judicial murder by the high priest Ananas in AD. 62 and refers to him as the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. From this passage two inferences can be drawn. (1) James was an important figure in Jerusalem up to the year 62; this confirms the impression we gain from Acts and from the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus. (2) Josephus probably — indeed, almost certainly — had already given some account of the Jesus to whom he referred in this brief notice, though his account was undoubtedly unfavorable.

If we turn to what he does say about Jesus, it is not what we should expect. The passage (18, 63-4) reads as follows:

At this time lived Jesus, a wise man (if it is right to call him a man), for he was a worker of miracles and a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure; as followers he gained many Jews and many of the Hellenic race. He was the Christ, and when by the accusation of the chief men among us Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who at first had loved him did not cease from doing so; for he appeared to them, alive again, on the third day, since the divine prophets had foretold this as well as countless other marvellous matters about him. Up to the present day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared.

In this form the description cannot come from Josephus. (1) It is purely Christian in outlook; indeed, only a Christian can have written it. (2) Origen, writing about 250, refers several times to Josephus's testimony to Jesus as contained in the passage about James; he makes no mention of the fuller account. Since he had read all the later books of the Antiquities, which he regarded as an excellent historical source, this passage cannot have been contained in them — or, if it was, Origen regarded the passage as suspect and therefore refrained from mentioning it.

Various attempts have been made to improve the text by leaving out a few words here and there and by reading he was not the Christ; but it is highly unlikely that any authentic original version can be recovered. We simply do not know the method which the forger used. All we know is what Origen knew: Josephus said something about Jesus and spoke of him as the “so-called Christ”.

Three other testimonies come from a group of Roman officials hostile to Christianity and other non-Roman religions, which they regarded as expressions of fanaticism or, as they called them, superstition. Pliny was legate to Bithynia and Pontus and wrote to the emperor Trajan in January 112; Tacitus, once proconsul of Asia (where Christians were fairly numerous), wrote his Annals in 112-13; and Suetonius, formerly an imperial secretary, published his gossipy Lives of the Caesars about 121.

Pliny tells us a good deal about Christians, little about Jesus. (1) The Christians, he says, were accustomed to sing a hymn “to Christ as to a god”. This sentence shows that Pliny knew, or believed, that Christ should be regarded not as a god but as a man, one who had actually lived and died as a human being.

(2) Renegade Christians were willing to curse Christ; true Christians could not be compelled to do so. Pliny was thus aware of the intensity of Christian devotion to the (human) leader. But his statement (Ep. 10, 96) provides no direct data about Jesus himself.

Tacitus describes a great fire at Rome under Nero in the summer of 64, and he mentions the Christians whom the emperor used as scapegoats. As is his custom, he gives a brief summary of background material to explain who the Christians were. We do not know where he got his information. If it comes from police reports, these in turn were probably based on the interrogation of Christians (Ann. 15, 44).

The founder of this sect, Christus, was given the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; suppressed for the moment, the detestable superstition broke out again, not only in Judaea where the evil originated, but also in the city [of Rome] to which everything horrible and shameful flows and where it grows.

Again, we learn something about Christianity. Momentarily suppressed at Christ's crucifixion, it “rose again” in Judaea and spread to Rome (compare the account in Acts). Of Christ himself we learn only that he founded the sect and was executed under Pontius Pilate. This hardly adds much to what the New Testament says; and if Tacitus' ultimate source is Christian, it adds nothing.

Finally, Suetonius mentions the fire at Rome in connection with Christians (Nero, 16) and also says that in the reign of Claudius the emperor expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (impulsore Chresto) (Claudius, 25). Since Claudius was emperor from 41 to 54, something is obviously wrong with this statement, even though one later Christian writer (Irenaeus) thought that Jesus was crucified during his reign. Probably it is a garbled version of a story about messianic riots in Rome, riots which could have resulted in the expulsion of such Christian Jews as Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). The passage shows that the name “Chrestus” (= Christus) was known at Rome during the reign of Claudius. Once more, nothing is added to what we could have inferred from the New Testament.

Our four Graeco-Roman sources, then, contribute nothing to our understanding of the life of Jesus. The Christian interpolator of Josephus undoubtedly thought that he was helping history to confirm faith. All he succeeded in doing was to remove any independent value from the testimony of Josephus.

One might hope for some evidence from rabbinical Jewish sources, but the stories the rabbis tell are late in date and reflect no more than the attitude of the synagogue towards an early heretic.

We are left, then, with Christian testimony. If we wish to recover early non-Christian attitudes towards Jesus we can rely only on what Christian sources are willing to tell us about them. To be sure, we can find that they give us a considerable amount of information. Jesus was frequently accused of violating the Jewish law in regard to Sabbath observances and ritual purity. He was thought to claim divine prerogatives, such as forgiving sins, for himself. His driving out demons was sometimes ascribed to Beelzebul, the prince of demons. The expression “son of Mary” used of him may perhaps reflect a suggestion (developed in later criticisms) that he was illegitimate. According to Luke, he was accused of leading a revolutionary movement, of forbidding the payment of taxes to the Romans, and of calling himself an anointed king. It is true that in part Christian writers report these accusations in order to contrast them with the true understanding which they themselves possess. But the accusations fit the first century situation so well that we need not suppose that they were invented. Indeed, if we possessed a report from Pontius Pilate the “facts” in it could hardly be very different from what the gospels tell us.

Within the Christian testimony, then, we find non-Christian elements. These elements are retained in support of Christian faith in Jesus; but the kind of faith they support is not something unrelated to events. The apostles and the evangelists are giving testimony to events in which, they believe, the work of God was made manifest — though not to all. Because historically the revelation was not received by all, the evangelists are free enough, and honest enough, to record the varying responses which were made to it. These responses, negative as well as positive, were included in the gospel story as they told it.

The above explanation by Robert Grant proves that there is no external evidence to a crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus, and that contrary to the evangelists claim that Jesus' crucifixion is “undeniable history,” the claim is simply unsupported by the h
istorical record. Moreover, even the few references to Jesus listed above do not predate Paul's letters, and as such may be from Christian sources anyway. Hence, Christianity starts with Paul's ten letters contained in the New Testament. Thus, when Paul says:

Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ .20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

he is telling the truth and that is that no one else knows of a crucifixion/resurrection except for Paul. Hence, either we believe that the former “Christian” persecutor (Galatians 1:13, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Philippians 3:6, Acts 7:58, Acts 9:1-2) is truly God's apostle to mankind (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1) or that his gospel of a crucifixion/resurrection is false. I happen to believe in the latter; the argument from silence is too incriminating a case for “Christianity” to escape from.

THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
The argument from silence is that there are no writings on “Christianity” that have come from the year Jesus left earth in 30 ce to the year 50 ce when Paul began “prophesying” his gospel; there are simply no writings that tell of a crucifixion/resurrection as contained in Paul's gospel. How could this be? What happened to all those “churches of Judea that were in Christ” (Galatians 1:22) that said, “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Galatians 1:23). How come none of these churches possessed any scripture or writings about the “faith” that Paul says is his? Why does not Paul quote from their writings? How come not one writing has ever survived from these “churches of Christ” which would have been preaching a crucifixion/resurrection for nearly 20 years until Paul started writing in 50ce? The answer is simple, there never were any “churches of Christ” that preached a Crucifixion/Resurrection. Paul is simply using this as a sales tool to purport that there were others that had similar beliefs as his and that as such his prospective audience should jump on board. However, anyone who reads Paul's ten letters contained in the New Testament can see that he was the sole inventor of his gospel. As Paul himself tells us.

Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

PAUL ADMITS THE UNIQUENESS OF HIS GOSPEL

Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Romans 11:13-14
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

August 7, 2010 at 1:59 am#207957

bodhitharta

Participant

Surah 3

55 Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

August 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm#208146

francis

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

Your argument is contradictory in itself as you claim the Quran is too far away from the occurrence to bear weight then you give incredible weight to a modern day Atheist historian. Secondly, Historical mentions are not Facts or evidence they are only evidence of being mentioned.

I keep saying this because I believe this… I think you are a good person. But in all honesty, it appears that you are not understanding a word I've been saying. I'm sure the fault is mine. And so I apologize.

Let's take what you just wrote above. The fact that you are claiming that I'm comparing the Quran to a modern day atheist not only shows that you haven't understood what I said, but it also shows once again that you don't understand how historians do their jobs. This modern day atheist you speak of is looking at HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. This modern day atheist himself is not a historical document… but he is a human being. The Quran is a historical document… not a human being.

Can't you see this? Historians are looking at DOCUMENTS… they are looking at what was written about an event. Historians come across all kinds of documents… some are fake, some are genuine, some are old, some are early, some are late, some are by eyewitnesses, some are 2nd hand testimony, etc, etc, etc.

But the point is that the atheist (and all historians) is not LOOKING AT HIMSELF…. but he is looking at the Quaran and the bible. These two are BOTH documents… not people. So the atheist I was referring too (Lane)… and the one you are referring too in your above statement… he is looking at the DOCUMENTS. This statement of yours above is a classic category fallacy on your part.

Again… I'm not comparing a modern day atheist historian to the Bible or to the Quran… but instead, I'm doing what ALL HISTORIANS do and that is comparing the DOCUMENTS. I'm not comparing a human being to the Quran. The modern day atheistic historian is comparing the Quran vs. the Bible and the extra-biblical documents which I had listed for you.

So you see… you are not understanding how historians work or what I was writing. And that is why I have not made any contradiction as you claim. What you've demonstrated for us is that you are not understanding how the historical method works and how historians use it to compare DOCUMENTS.

Secondly… it's a near unanimous agreement among all critical scholars and historians Jesus' death by crucifixion is an historical fact. They arrived at that fact by looking at and comparing DOCUMENTS from the Ancient world. The documents they were looking at were written 100's of years earlier than the Quran. And as ANY AND EVERY historian will tell you, the earlier the document is written about an event, the better. That is another fact you don't seem to understand or appreciate.

Quote

There is no Orthodox Jew who would call Jesus the Messiah,…

I never mentioned the word “Messiah” ONCE in anything I've written to you. So this statement by you is a classic red herring and a nonsequitur because it does not follow from anything I wrote. Instead of discussing the issue of whether Jesus was the Messiah… I have deliberately ONLY been discussing the issue of the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.

That is an historical fact and so it doesn't matter if Jesus was a Messiah or was not… because either way it won't change the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Can't you see this? Let's suppose you are right and Jesus was not the Messiah? So? What does this have to do with the historical fact that Jesus was crucified? See?

Quote

In Jewish history no Messiah has come yet so according to you they must be correct in which case your argument for historians works against your own belief. Also if you could actually provide some of these “proof texts” it would be good as many that I have personally seen are not even specifically talking about Jesus instead there is “mention” of people like “Yeshu” which is not “Yeshu” and other references that one would have to already have the knowledge of Jesus to even presume it is about Jesus.

First of all… what does your mentioning of the Messiah have anything do with whether Jesus died by crucifixion or not? It has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about… and therefore, this is yet another classic red herring on your part. The point is this… whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, it doesn't alter the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Secondly… Many scholars think the name “Yeshu” in the BABYLONIAN TALMUD (Sanhedrin 43a) is indeed referring to Jesus… and for very good reasons. Look at the verse again:

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Some texts: Yeshu/Jesus the Nazarene] was hanged [crucified]. Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”

In the above excerpt the Talmud mentions this person “Yeshu” having the ability to perform miracles, but the Talmud tries to dismiss it as sorcery.

And we know that Jesus supposedly did miracles and that the Sanhedrin had attributed these supposed miracles by Jesus to be from the devil/sorcery. We also know that Jesus Jesus was hanged on a tree (idiom for crucifixion)… and this is a historical fact. We also know that Jesus was killed during the Passover. We also know that Jesus was ultimately arrested for the sin of blasphemy (enticing Israel to apostasy).

Now while it is possible that this passage could refer to another individual, common sense suggests that because of all the surrounding text around that person's name (Yeshu), that it is very likely that Yeshu in this verse is Jesus. Furthermore, there are other translations which read Yeshu the Nazarene which give us even more reason to believe this passage pertains to Jesus. This verse matches up perfectly with the events surrounding Jesus as described in the NT.

Also consider that there is NO OTHER written document anywhere that describes another person named Yeshu who went thru the SAME THINGS that Jesus did and which is listed in the Talmud (in Sanhedrin 43a). IF you can point to another person named Yeshu who went thru the same things which are listed in this verse, then you would have a good argument. Otherwise, it is very reasonable to believe that in this case, Yeshu is Jesus.

Here is one more thing to consider. IF the writers of that Talmudic verse were simply refuting a myth or the lie that Jesus was hanged (an idiom for crucifixion)… then they would have most likely simply dismissed the tale was a rum
or outright. The Talmud never does.

Indeed… and this is very important… the Jews (especially the Sanhedrin) hated Jesus and Christianity. The Jews truly believe that the story of Jesus being crucified by the Jews, actually resulted throughout history of Jews being horribly persecuted as “Christ Killers”. If Jesus was never hanged/crucified… the Talmud and ALL WRITINGS from Jewish leaders would have been saying that Jesus' crucifixion is all a myth… a lie… a fabrication. But you can't find this kind of argument in ANY writings from any Jewish leaders. They're silence is deafening.

Quote

I've already answered this in my previous post. So why are you bringing this up again? You don't even bother to rebut what i wrote, but instead you just repeat what you keep saying. But it's completely irrelevant. The issue is not WHEN Jesus died… but DID HE DIE!!!! Can't you see this?

Please… please…please Asana… I know you are a good person… so please tell me how does the different dates of when Jesus die, demonstrate that Jesus didn't die in the first place ? All the people who are giving different dates as to when Jesus die are all agreeing on the same thing.. and that is Jesus died. And THAT IS THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING. Did Jesus die? Not WHEN he died. Can't you see this?

Quote

Also most importantly most of the older “historical mentions” are based on hearsay but let us stop here for a moment and get to a more serious subject.

But historians CAN AND DO still use such documents. Using your logic, then what the Quran says about Jesus is also hearsay because IT IS MUCH OLDER than any of the documents I have listed and it also qualifies as hearsay!!!!! Can't you see how faulty your reasoning is?

Quote

If you have proof or evidence that Jesus did not die… then present it. It's that simple. I have been presenting evidence to show that Jesus did die. You haven't that I can see.

Quote

That means I would believe that Jesus was crucified and then with the further revelation of the Quran I would understand that God saved Jesus from being crucified now with that understanding it confirms to me that Jesus was in-fact plotted against to be crucified and they prepared to crucify him but the revelation explains that it simply never happened because God spared Jesus from crucifixion. Now look at the Jonah story and tell me wouldn't those people on the boat historically report that Jonah died from drowning because that is what they assumed to have occurred but later it is revealed in the story that God saved Jonah from death.

1)… You're giving us what is described in Philosophy as a “just so story”. If you have no historical evidence or some kind of evidence to support your belief that Jesus did not die on the cross… then all you're doing is giving us a “just so story”. You're just giving us a story with no facts or evidence to back it up. Now please understand… I am more than willing to consider the possibility that Jesus did not die if you would only give me some strong evidence I can analyze objectively as an historian and logician. I will even seriously look at whether Jesus was a myth if there is good evidence for that position. I will even seriously look at whether Jesus was the Messiah if there is good evidence presented. I am open minded and will let the evidence lead me to where it leads… and not the other way around.

And although I don't believe you are correct that Jesus didn't die by crucifixion, I will still seriously look at any evidence you can give me for your position. But as far as I can see, you haven't done that.

2)… If your God actually saved Jesus from the cross… then why would your God not make it plain that He did in fact spare Jesus from crucifixion? Look at the logical corner you've painted your God into… you say that your God spared Jesus from the cross… and yet ALL THE EVIDENCE shows that Jesus actually died on the cross. There is so much evidence for the death of Jesus by crucifixion, that the vast majority of historians agree that the Jesus' crucifixion is an historical fact.

Now… if your God saved Jesus from the cross, but did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to supply evidence of what He did… but allowed everyone to be deceived… then isn't your God to blame for the billions of Christians who are going to hell because your God didn't clear up the record and supply all kinds of evidence to show that Jesus did not die?

3)… The problem with your Jonah example is that the sailors DID NOT SEE Jonah after he went into the sea. So IT WOULD have been a reasonable conclusion that Jonah probably died by drowning. I would have come to the same conclusion if I was in the sailors position as well. BUT the problem is that you are trying to compare the Jonah story with the Jesus story, and here is the difference. Jesus' disciples saw a post-mortem Jesus and were convinced that Jesus was alive again. By the way… the post-mortem sighting of Jesus is ANOTHER HISTORICAL FACT THAT OVER 95% OF HISTORIANS AGREE ON!!!!

Anyway… in the Jonah story, the sailors didn't see Jonah again. If they did see Jonah, they would have known that Jonah didn't drown. But as far as we know, they didn't see Jonah alive again. Now in Jesus' case… if there was no post-mortem sighting of Jesus… if the disciples never saw Jesus alive again… then his disciples would have rightly assumed that Jesus died, and that he stayed dead.

Jesus' disciples saw Jesus alive after his death. The sailors in Jonah's story did not know that Jonah didn't die because they never saw Jonah again… so they were right to think that Jonah did drown. But if they did see Jonah alive, then they would have retracted their report of Jonah's drowning. And even if the sailors never saw Jonah again… the city of Nineveh did… 1000's in fact in that city, saw Jonah alive. And for an historian, they would have said that the sailor THOUGHT Jonah drowned because they didn't see him alive again… but Jonah remained alive as the 1000's in Nineveh testified.

That's why this example of yours is a category fallacy. They are not the same.

Quote

Your argument based on secular history does not have a sound footing at all because as I have said in
the context of Jewish history Jesus was a false prophet, a heretic and anything else but the Messiah and furthermore they also insist that historically according to their religion which Jesus was that he could not be qualified to even be Messiah. Now you pull Christian history out from Jewish history and try to give it independent meaning but your argument was for Historical views being valid views.

All of this is irrelevant and a classic red herring. You keep doing this. None of what you said above has anything to do with whether Jesus died or not. NOTHING. And that's the issue we are discussing. This once again shows that you have not understood what I've been discussing… or you have not read what I have written. To be very clear… I have not MENTIONED ANYTHING about whether Jesus was the Messiah or whether he was a false/true prophet or whether he was a heretic or not. All I've been doing is arguing ONE POINT WITH YOU. ONLY ONE!!!!

Did Jesus die by crucifixion? It's that simple. And yet you keep committing the red herring fallacy by bringing up issues that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the point we are discussing. The death of Jesus.

Quote

also From Robert M. Price: Resurrection (1987)

This is ANOTHER RED HERRING!!! I'm not taking about the resurrection right now. Can't you see this? I'm talking about whether Jesus died by crucifixion or not. And anyway… you don't even believe that Jesus was resurrected in the first place since you believe that He ascended into heaven… so why are you bringing this up?

This will be a good discussion ONCE WE GET TO THE RESURRECTION PART (if we ever do)… but we haven't gotten there yet because you keep saying that Jesus did not die in the first place!!!! How can we talk about the Resurrection when we are still discussing whether Jesus died or not?

I'm arguing against your claim that Jesus did not die… not whether Jesus was resurrected or not. Can you see this?

Quote

Another red herring. None of this rebuts the historical fact that Jesus was crucified. The Crucifixion of Christ was mentioned in many, many extra-biblical sources and I already listed them for you.

All the things you bring up would make an interesting discussion… they really would… and I already know what the answer is and I am prepared to discuss these points if we ever get to that point in our discussion… BUT all these are red herrings because they have nothing at all to do with the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion as found by the vast majority of critical scholars and historians.

I mean, think about it Asana… even if there was no midday darkness.. and no earthquake.. and no mass resurrection from the dead in Jerusalem… and even there were other miracle workers around in Israel etc, etc… NONE of this changes the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion. Can't you see this? The historians don't believe that there was a mass resurrection and they don't believe there was an earthquake and they don't believe that there was any midday darkness and they don't believe there was any mass resurrection from the dead in Jerusalem… and yet they STILL say that it is an historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Can't you see that I already told you that the Bible can be full of errors and mistakes, and the historians can STILL FIND HISTORICAL FACTS which they can separate from any errors they have found? And guess what… one of those historical facts the historians have found is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

And why you keep saying that there is no external evidence to the crucifixion of Jesus when I've listed them for you… is beyond me.

Quote

DOES THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROVIDE “UNDENIABLE HISTORY” THAT A MAN NAMED JESUS EXISTED AND WAS CRUCIFIED?

Yes.. as far as what historians deem as being “undeniable”. That is why the historians say it is an HISTORICAL FACT that Jesus died by crucifixion. And you can't have that historical fact if Jesus did not exist in the first place.

Quote

Does the historical record confirm that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified? The answer is no.

The answer is yes, and I listed them for you. The VAST MAJORITY of historians all agree that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. The number of historians who don't believe that he ever existed are incredibly small and they are on the fringe… and none of them are taken seriously in the mainstream academic world. These myth historians even admit that their opinion (that Jesus never existed) IS in the minority… and that they are not taken seriousl by the vast majority of the other historians who have examined this issue.

Quote

In fact atheists have an easy time even arguing that Jesus never existed. What modern scholars say: the renowned internationally recognized scholar Robert M Grant writes in his book, “A Historical Introduction To The New Testament”

Pg 290 Chapter 19

Jesus in Non-Christian Writings

Asana… Asana… Robert M Grant never once says that Jesus never existed. Where in that book of his does he say that Jesus never existed? By the way… his book was written in 1963… almost 50 years ago… So this doesn't make his book an example of modern scholarship.

And like I said before, the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus did exist… and they don't take seriously the idea that Jesus was a myth. In fact, the vast majority of Historians will point to the shoddy scholarship of the “Jesus is a myth” historians.

But anyway… Grant doesn't deny Jesus' existence. And by the way… where do you get the idea that Grant was not a Christian? I couldn't find anywhere where it tells us that he was not a Christian… or that he was an atheist. So you're above statement is confusing for me.

You said: “In fact atheists have an easy time even arguing that Jesus never existed. What modern scholars say: the renowned internationally recognized scholar Robert M Grant writes in his book…”. To me, it appears that you are calling Grant an atheist. Was he? And can you point to your evidence for this? Because I couldn't find it by doing any search on Google.

Quote

The passage about John the Baptist (18, 116-19) depicts him as a “teacher of righteousness” and makes no reference to his eschatological views. His baptism is portrayed as absolutely non-sacramental. The passage about James (20, 197-203) describes his judicial murder by the high priest Ananas in AD. 62 and refers to him as the brother of Jesus, the so- called Christ. From this passage two inferences can be drawn. (1) James was an important figure in Jerusalem up to the year 62; this confirms the impression we gain from Acts and from the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus. (2) Josephus probably — indeed, almost certainly — had already given some account of the Jesus to whom he referred in this brief notice, though his account was undoubtedly unfavorable.

If we turn to what he does say about Jesus, it is not what we should expect. The passage (18, 63-4) reads as follows:

At this time lived Jesus, a wise man (if it is right to call him a man), for he was a worker of miracles and a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure; as followers he gained many Jews and many of the Hellenic race. He was the Christ, and when by the accusation of the chief men among us Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who at first had loved him did not cease from doing so; for he appeared to them, alive again, on the third day, since the divine prophets had foretold this as well as countless other marvelous matters about him. Up to the present day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared.

In this form the description cannot come from Josephus. (1) It is purely Christian in outlook; indeed, only a Christian can have written it. (2) Origen, writing about 250, refers several times to Josephus' testimony to Jesus as contained in the passage about James; he makes no mention of the fuller account. Since he had read all the later books of the Antiquities, which he regarded as an excellent historical source, this passage cannot have been contained in them — or, if it was, Origen regarded the passage as suspect and therefore refrained from mentioning it.

Asana… I can tell from your writing that all you're doing is copying and pasting information you've found on the internet. You're writing style and form have completely changed. I don't mind and I don't care… but it appears to me that you're not really taking this stuff seriously and trying to think for yourself. It appears to me, and I could be wrong, but you've basically given up on arguing with your own mind, but instead are just using atheists and others to do the thinking for you. It appears, and I could be wrong, that you are not trying to be objective like the majority of historians and critical scholars try to be. I hope I am wrong because I know you are a good person.

First of all… most of what you pasted above is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Jesus Died by crucifixion. John the Baptist has nothing to do with our issue of Jesus' crucifixion. The passage about James has nothing to do with our discussion. And Whether or not Josephus was devoted sup
porter of Rome is also relevant. Well… actually, if that was true… that would in fact rule in the favor of whatever he might write about Christianity that might confirm an aspect of Christianity… because as anyone in logic understands… a hostile witness is always a valuable piece of evidence.

Secondly… the facts you have failed to bring up is that the vast majority of scholars who address this issue think that although Josephus' longer statement about Jesus in Antiquities 18:3 has been altered a bit, the bulk of it was written by Josephus. And the one part of Josephus which is NOT disputed by the vast majority of scholars… many of them being atheists… is the part in Josephus which says: “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified…”

Indeed, if you look on the website called http://www.infidels.org… you'll see the same thing in which they also do not dispute this part of Josephus statement. And Infidels are atheists who try and do everything they can to discount Christianity and Jesus. This website is a perfect example of a hostile witness for my side and against your side.

James Charlesworth, and atheist on infidels.org supplies a version of the Josephus' passage that keeps this in the part about Jesus' crucifixion. In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity (“if indeed one ought to call him a man”) are all removed. But Jesus' crucifixion is left in.

F.F. Bruce (atheist) takes an even more hostile stance towards Jesus and gives another version about the Josephus dispute in which he takes out even more stuff from the Josephus passage and yet he leaves in the crucifixion part in.

There are good reasons why only a few scholars will reject all of Josephus' passage as a complete interpolation by Christians. The reason why the majority will keep most of it is because (1)–> there is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have… (2)–> there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology found in the passage… (3)–> the emphasis of the passage is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused (there is no praise for James or Jesus in the trimmed down version that the majority of scholars agree with)… (4)–> Christian copyists also handled the works of the Jewish historian Philo for hundreds of years; yet we have no Testimonium Philoum to wrangle over… (5)–> Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts and would have been committing an act of unparalleled scribal audacity by creating the Testimonium out of the whole cloth… (6)–> the stripped down version is identifiably in the style of Josephus… (7)–> James Charlesworth, the atheist I mentioned from Infidels.org above, says that Josephus was fond of Jewish wisdom and of Greek philosophy and he would have admired Jesus who uttered many wise and philosophical maxims… (8)–> the reason why the passage looks out of place was because Josephus was known as a “patchwork writer” who was constantly guilty of sloppiness… etc. etc. etc. The reasons can go on and on.

Anyway… the bottom line is that the majority of scholars accept a stripped down version of the disputed Josephus' passage… and in that stripped down version… Jesus' crucifixion is kept in. So Josephus' writings is evidence for Jesus crucifixion and death.

Quote

You've just supplied more evidence for my position that Jesus died. You've been arguing that Jesus did not die… I have been arguing that he did die. Look at the last sentence you copied and pasted!!

To me this shows that you are either not reading what you've copying and pasting or you've not reading what I have kept arguing for… that Jesus died. BTW… Pliny doesn't mention the crucifixion or of Jesus' death. The part where Pliny talks about Christians was in his correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan. It included a report on proceedings against Christians in which he is explaining that he forced to kill Christias because many of them wouldn't recant their beliefs. That is why I never listed Pliny in the list I gave you as secular sources in support of Jesus' crucifixion and death.

quote]Renegade Christians were willing to curse Christ; true Christians could not be compelled to do so. Pliny was thus aware of the intensity of Christian devotion to the (human) leader. But his statement (Ep. 10, 96) provides no direct data about Jesus himself.[/quote]

That is why I never used Pliny in my list to you in my previous post.

Quote

ASANA… ASANA… ASANA… WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING?

Look at what you just wrote!!!!! We've been discussing whether Jesus was crucified and died (because you don't believe Jesus died) and here you are GIVING EVIDENCE FOR MY SIDE AND AGAINST YOUR SIDE!!!!!!!

Here is what you just wrote:

“Of Christ himself we learn only that he founded the sect and was executed under Pontius Pilate”

Asana… what are you doing? Have not paid any attention to what our discussion is what I've written to you?

Quote

Finally, Suetonius mentions the fire at Rome in conne
ction with Christians (Nero, 16) and also says that in the reign of Claudius the emperor expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (impulsore Chresto) (Claudius, 25). Since Claudius was emperor from 41 to 54, something is obviously wrong with this statement, even though one later Christian writer (Irenaeus) thought that Jesus was crucified during his reign. Probably it is a garbled version of a story about messianic riots in Rome, riots which could have resulted in the expulsion of such Christian Jews as Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). The passage shows that the name “Chrestus” (= Christus) was known at Rome during the reign of Claudius. Once more, nothing is added to what we could have inferred from the New Testament.

Asana… what does any of the above have to do with whether Jesus was crucified and died? What do riots and the fire at Rome and the expulsion of Christians have anything to do with the issue we are discussing about Jesus' Crucifixion and his death?

Quote

You dealt with NONE of the sources I listed in support of the Jesus' crucifixion and death. Indeed, a couple of times you even supplied evidence for my side, not your side in which you say that Jesus never died. The Greco-Roman sources I supplied to you, did mention Jesus' crucifixion and death including Josephus. You didn't deal with any of it.

Quote

One might hope for some evidence from rabbinical Jewish sources, but the stories the rabbis tell are late in date and reflect no more than the attitude of the synagogue towards an early heretic.

I already dealt with this above. And like I said, the attitude of the synagogue towards Jesus, a heretic in their eyes, was hatred and scorn and they despised him. If Jesus was never crucified and if Jesus never died… the Sanhedrin would have taken that opportunity and show how Jesus' followers were all liars who were following in the evil footsteps of the heretic Jesus. Their silence in THROUGHOUT history on this issue only supports my side.

And also, I dealt with the “Yeshu” reference above.

Quote

What does any of this have to do with whether or not Jesus' crucifixion had occurred? I will repeat it again… according to critical scholars and Christians, it is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified and that he died.

Quote

First of all… I gave you the list of extra-biblical sources (secular and Christian) that are used as evidence by the vast majority of critical scholars and historians (atheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, and Christians) to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified and that he died. Not once in all the writings above of yours, did you even deal with what these sources said about Jesus' crucifixion and which I supplied.

Instead… I have repeatedly shown how you have engaged in irrelevant material and red herrings that had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was crucified and died. I kept having to ask you: “what does this have to do with our discussion about the death of Jesus?”

Secondly… Grant doesn't dispute the crucifixion and death of Jesus.

Thirdly… Grant's book which you are using was published in 1963, almost 50 years ago (half a century)… which is not an example of modern scholarship.

Fourthly… Each of Grant's objections (if there are any) have been effectively dealt with by modern critical scholars and historians and that is why the vast majority of them say that it is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified and that he died.

Quote

Moreover, even the few references to Jesus listed above do not predate Paul's letters, and as such may be from Christian sources anyway.

Some of the sources were very hostile to Christianity, and if Jesus was not crucified and if Jesus had not died… they would have taken that opportunity to NOT copy and further the Christian claim that Jesus was crucified and died.. but would have EXPOSED the lie that Jesus was crucified and that Jesus died at the hands of the Romans.

You're also making accusations that you can't even support. Just saying that it is possible that these writers copied or used Christian sources without checking them out first and letting their readers know… doesn't make it so… and you can't demonstrate that this is what happened. Especially when the present topic is Jesus' crucifixion.

A good scholar will always try and
present evidence for accusation or position. Why not give us evidence as to which of these writers were only copying and/or using Christian sources without letting their readers know that this is what they were doing?

Quote

Hence, Christianity starts with Paul's ten letters contained in the New Testament. Thus, when Paul says:

Galatians 1:11-12,20

“I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ .20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.”

Where does it say in the verse you've given us that NO ONE ELSE KNOWS OF A CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION EXCEPT FOR PAUL ? He doesn't say any such thing… so this is a classic nonsequitur and a strawman argument on your part.

Paul is talking about HIMSELF… not anyone else. He is telling us WHO GAVE THE GOSPEL TO HIM!!! He's not telling us that NO ONE else knows of the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus. You just add things that are not there to fit your own personal beliefs.

What “man” was going to give Paul, the Christian Persecutor, the Gospel when everyone was hiding in fear of him? It was when he withdrew into the desert that most think God explained to Paul the message of the Gospels.

Quote

First of all… if it's okay for you to say that Paul was using a made up story… a myth… a lie… as a sales tool to gain an audience and converts… then why wouldn't it be okay to say that Mohammad did the same thing with the Quran? Why is okay for you to denigrate Paul and call him a liar, but it is not okay to denigrate Mohammad and his story and call Mohammad a liar? Indeed, you're not only questioning Paul's integrity, but also the Gospel writers who tell the same story.

Asana… not even reputable, atheistic, secular mainstream scholars would ever call into question someones integrity without at least some proof. All I see you doing is calling people liars from a faith that you are not a part of. And from where I sit… that makes atheistic and agnostic mainstream scholars seem like better and more gracious people than you. If Allah is a good God, certainly he wouldn't want his followers to call into integrity of other people without any proof.

What you did was to take and use the “argument from silence” as pretext to call as liars, Paul and the writers of the Gospels.

Anyway… to rebut this “argument from silence” of yours, all I need to do is give a reasonable explanation for this supposed silence. And it is very easy indeed.

So… first of all… all historians and critical scholars knew that this was an extremely oral society. There is all kinds of evidence within Paul's own writings… as well within the Gospels… that there was a period of oral tradition which preceded the writing of both.

Just from the top of my head, we can see from Paul's own writings like 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 11:23-5, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Gal. 5:14, Romans 13:8-10, etc that Paul was well acquainted with collections of oral traditions which related both the words and the deeds of Jesus before they were written down. Does this mean that in his time written records did not exist? Well… such an inference is not justified because there were some writings like the Qumran… etc. But it is very significant that many of the tradition of Jesus' sayings bears the marks of oral circulation. Many of his sayings have been handed down in an arrangement which reflects not the subject matter involved but a correlation by means of verbal association… and such arrangements are characteristic of the transmission of oral materials.

They suggest that until a time not long before the composition of the written gospels there was no uniform arrangement of the sayings of Jesus but that the sayings continued to be circulated orally. This is to say that oral traditions not only were characteristic of Paul’s day but also continued to be utilized considerably later — at least into the decade between 60 and 70.

What is amazing is that oral tradition continued to exist in much later times. Now… after the written gospels began to be circulated, there was some tendency to favor the written at the expense of the oral, even though defenders of oral tradition like Papias insisted that oral reports of eye-witnesses were more reliable than written documents. Here is what he said: “I supposed that materials taken from books would not assist me as much as those received from a living, surviving oral witness”.

So it shown that this highly oral society depended on oral traditions and arrangement to spread information throughout Israel and within their society. Even after the writings of Paul and the Gospels were written. This would explain a lot of the silence you speak of.

Secondly… we don't even have the original Bible at all nor the original Roman records which Tacitus used to write his histories of the Roman Empire. Indeed, we have VERY LITTLE writings from the ancient past… so why would you expect some of these writings you are looking for?

The only reason we have the NT is because there were 1000's and 1000's of NT documents copied which helped to ensure that we would them with us. The paper and writing materials simply did not stand up to the elements of weather… and so we just don't have a lot of them. And unless they were copied extensively and stored appropriately, they simply disintegrated.

And why would there be 1000's of copies of material written by people
who were not part of the inner core and foundation of early Christianity like the people from the churches that Paul set up? Their writings were not important to begin with to invest the amount of time required to make 1000's of copies to ensure posterity.

Anyway… your “argument from silence” is easily explainable in a reasonable manner and so you have no good strong proof/evidence that Paul… or the Gospel writers… made up the Gospel story of Jesus' crucifixion and death.

And you certainly cannot argue from silence that Paul and the other NT writers were all liars. With absolutely no proof, it is not moral or right to call people liars. I don't even think Allah would like that. Would he?

Quote

As Paul himself tells us.

Galatians 1:11-12,20 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

PAUL ADMITS THE UNIQUENESS OF HIS GOSPEL

Non sequitur. All the above verse is saying is that HOW Paul received the Gospel is unique.

Quote

(Romans 2:16) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

(Romans 11:13-14) I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

How does any of this show that Jesus was not crucified and that He did not die?

We're back to square one. You never show us with any kind of evidence or proof that Jesus was never crucified or that he never died.

——

Well Asana… sorry for the long post… but I believe to take everyone seriously. This topic is serious because it is one of the main points of differences between Christianity and Islam. Was Jesus crucified and did he die? And because it is important… and because you are a good person… and because I take you seriously… I thought it worth my time to make a sacrifice of my time and respond in detail to each of your points and observations.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

August 9, 2010 at 12:54 am#208165

bodhitharta

Participant

I must first say thank you very much for taking this matter so seriously and for that I salute you Francis

As I look on my posts I will agree that at some points I did unintentionally use red herrings and or non-sequitors
I apologize for that but I let you convince me of arguing your argument which was faulty

Now I must explain to you why your points are flawed and then perhaps we can get somewhere.

First of all you are commiting many logocal fallacies

1. Appeal to authority, you say that your argument is correct because Scholars agree and of course that is not “Evidence” or does not make your premise true.

2. Appeal to Popularity once again saying that 99% of scholars agree would not be evidence that the 1% remaining would not be correct

3. Appeal to tradition/antiquity

Now without using these fallacies what evidence can you actually have?

Now I do want to make once again ask you to look at this verse:

That they said (in boast), “we killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

So even though your argument for “proof” is flawed, the Quran agrees to the premise of the assertion that Christ was Crucified.

We can agree that we both believe 100% that this assertion was made

The Quran also agrees that it “appeared to them” that he was crucified

So we can agree 100% that it appeared that Christ was Crucified

Now the Quran says something else “they killed him not, nor crucified him” and “those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow”

So now we can go further:

You can now see that the Quran agrees with the bible on those points but then reveals a previously hidden bit of information
I would also say that this information could have been known to the Disciples as Jesus did declare that he taught them some things
in secret.

Now regarding the crucifixion is it possible that Jesus taught them of this secret?

You see, what I am saying is now that we have gotten rid of the Logical fallacies we are now at this point.
You will agree there is no “body” or bones to examine, right?

What other evidence do you have?

Two of your Eye witnesses said:

And they all forsook him, and fled.
Mark 14:49-51

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Matthew 26:55-57

If all the disciples forsook him and fled then they did not witness the actual event.

God Bless and I look forward to your response.

Bodhitharta:;):

August 9, 2010 at 1:03 am#208166

shimmer

Participant

Francis, those are really long post's. Well done. Welcome to Heaven net, God bless you.

August 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm#208198

Ed J

Participant

Hi Fransis,

We have all been trying to reason with Asana Bodhitharta here. (Isaiah 1:18-19)

2Thess. 2:9-11 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan
with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness
of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love
of the truth, that they might be saved. (2Cor.4:3-4) And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (Gal.1:6-9 / 2Cor.11:4,14)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm#208206

bodhitharta

Participant

2 Thessalonians 2

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Ed do you ever actually study the scriptures and what is being said did you even understand what you wrote or what the passage is pertaining to?

2 Thessalonians 1:6 (English Standard Version)
6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,

Matthew 5:44 (King James Version)

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Which gospel do you follow?

August 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm#208291

francis

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

I must first say thank you very much for taking this matter so seriously and for that I salute you Francis

I have always believed you are a good person and so I knew all along that you were sometimes unintentionally using red herrings and non-squitors. I never thought less of you because I believe in treating other people the way you want to be treated. So I thank you very much for not taking any of this personally. I salute your passion and your commitment to your faith and I respect you for that. It just so happens that we differ on some very fundamental issues which separates and divides Islam versus Christianity, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issue in a fair and open minded way.

Quote

Now I must explain to you why your points are flawed and then perhaps we can get somewhere.

First of all you are committing many logical fallacies

1. Appeal to authority, you say that your argument is correct because Scholars agree and of course that is not “Evidence” or does not make your premise true.

It is very possible that I have committed many logical fallacies because I'm not very intelligent. But I do know that I have not committed the fallacy of appealing to authority. If all I did was appeal to authority (scholars/historians) for my side WITHOUT also giving you the evidence which has persuaded the vast majority of those scholars to agree that it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified and died…. then… and only then… would you be correct in saying that I was committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

But as everyone can plainly see from my lengthy posts to you… that is not what I've been doing. All along, I have given you the EVIDENCE for the REASON why the vast majority of critical scholars and historians have said that Jesus' crucifixion and death is a historical fact. Can you see this?

It is the overwhelming evidence…. it is the overwhelming evidence… it is the overwhelming evidence… it is the overwhelming evidence I have provided you which has persuaded the vast majority of historians to say that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact. Please read this very carefully and please understand this… because this is important and it bears repeating: If all I did was SAY (appeal) to authority… WITHOUT supplying the evidence as well which these authorities use… THEN AND ONLY THEN would I be guilty of appealing to authority.

It is the evidence I'm asking you to look at… and that is why I presented it to you. If i did not have any evidence… if there was no evidence to present… then I wouldn't have listed it for you. But I presented the overwhelming evidence which is responsible for convincing the vast majority of historians that Jesus' crucifixion was an historical fact.

And that is why I know that I did not commit the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

Quote

2. Appeal to Popularity once again saying that 99% of scholars agree would not be evidence that the 1% remaining would not be correct

And for the same reasons as above, I know that I have been guilty of comitting this particular logical fallacy. It is very true that most people and scholars can be incorrect at times… and indeed have been incorrect at times in history. And it is for that reason why I presented the EVIDENE which has persuaded the vast majority of scholars and historians that Jesus' crucifixion and death is an historical fact. Not because of the popularity or authority… but because of the evidence.

I presented them to you. One of the key evidences which has been so persuasive to the scholars is the multiple attestation of Jesus' crucifixion found in a broad spectrum of extra-biblical written documents representing atheist to agnostics to non-Christians and to Christians. And the couple of times when you did try and challenge the evidence… like with Josephus and the Talmud… I went deeper with you on each one to show the evidence which had persuaded the vast majority of scholars to accept these two sources as evidence for Jesus' crucifixion.

And that is why I know that I did not commit the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.

Quote

3. Appeal to tradition/antiquity

I don't even follow you on this one. But anyway… I have always been appealing to evidence… I then showed that because the evidence is so convincing and overwhelming, that is why a vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Quote

Now without using these fallacies what evidence can you actually have?

I've listed the evidence for you. I listed the multiple attestation for Jesus' crucifixion for you. I listed all the extra-Biblical sources that speak about Jesus' crucifixion because that is what you asked for. Add to this mix the Gospels… and you have an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that Jesus was crucified.

Quote

Now I do want to make once again ask you to look at this verse:

I don't understand why you think that this assertion in a written document, written 600 years after the fact, is an example of convincing evidence for any objective, rational person to consider.

I mean think about Asana… isn't it true that anyone can say anything? Indeed they can… and in fact, I asked you what is the difference between you saying that it was made to appear to them that they killed Jesus… but they actually did not…. and someone else saying the same thing about Muhammad? What if someone were to say that it appeared to Muhammad that Allah was saying to him that it appeared to the Jews that they killed Jesus when they really didn't? What if Muhammad was being deceived like the Jews were? What would you say to that? I alre
ady asked you this question before, and you never answered it.

And now you are here raising the very same verse even though I asked the above question of you about this verse from the Quran in my last post to you, which you have yet to answer.

I also asked you another question in my last post which you didn't answer… even though it also goes to the very heart of this verse from the Quran you keep bringing up. This is what I wrote to you previously and asked of you:

You have not answered this question either. So these are two questions I have asked you about concerning the Quran's claim that it appeared to the Jews that they killed Jesus, when in actuality they did not.

Here is another question I asked you about Surah 4:157 which you have not answered. In a previous post you wrote this:

“Also most importantly most of the older “historical mentions” are based on hearsay…”

Now… if you truly, truly, truly believe this statement of yours about older historical documents being based on hearsay, isn't it true that Surah 4:157 is guilty of being hearsay because it was written almost 600 YEARS after the event it is talking about? If you don't believe that Surah 4:157 is hearsay… then explain why you believe it is not… and yet you believe that the older documents I presented (which are a lot younger than the Quran) are hearsay?

Quote

So even though your argument for “proof” is flawed, the Quran agrees to the premise of the assertion that Christ was Crucified.

First of all, you've not shown that any of the evidence which I presented to you… and which the scholars and historians have used… is flawed. Only twice did you seem to directly challenge all the evidence I presented… Josephus and the Talmud… and I went deeper with you on each one and you have not rebutted it.

Secondly… it unfortunately does not seem that the Quran agrees with the Bible or with the extra-Biblical sources or with the vast majority of Scholars or with the evidence or with me or with Christianity that Jesus was crucified.

The moment you added the qualifier “assertion” you have effectively shown that the Quran does NOT agree with the evidence or with the vast majority of scholars or the rest listed above.

The word “assertion” is not the same thing as saying “was”. If you took the word “assertion” out of the above statement of yours, it would read and mean something COMPLETELY different. Here is how your statement will look like if we take out the word “assertion”:

“… the Quran agrees to the premise that Christ was Crucified”

See how much that one word “assertion” changes everything? You can see now that the word “assertion” does not mean the same thing as “was”. The word “assertion” qualifies the word “was”.

All the evidence I presented to you says that Jesus WAS crucified… not that it is ASSERTED that Jesus was crucified.

More on this point below.

Quote

We can agree that we both believe 100% that this assertion was made. The Quran also agrees that it “appeared to them” that he was crucified. So we can agree 100% that it appeared that Christ was Crucified

Saying that Jesus WAS crucified… is NOT THE SAME THING as saying that “this assertion was made”… NOR is it the same thing as saying “it appeared that Christ was Crucified”. You and I are having a language problem. This reminds me of what was happening between us earlier when I had to show the difference between the word “NO” and the words “NOT MUCH”.

The word “WAS” does not mean the same thing as “APPEARED” or “ASSERTION”. The word “WAS” is saying something actually DID HAPPEN… but the words “APPEARED” and “ASSERTION” are not saying that something necessarily did happen. The words “WAS CRUCIFIED” does not mean the same things as “APPEARED TO BE CRUCIFIED” or “ASSERTED TO CRUCIFIED”.

So it appears that in fact the Quran does NOT agree with the premise that Christ WAS crucified as all the evidence shows.

Indeed, isn't it true that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion to have ever happened in the first place? Isn't that why you keep wanting to say that it APPEARED that Jesus was crucified? Isn't that why you keep wanting to say it is ASSERTED that Jesus was crucified? Isn't it true that you honestly don't believe that Jesus was crucified or that he was hung on a tree (idiom for crucifixion) to begin with? Isn't it true that you honestly don't believe that Jesus was nailed to a tree/cross? Isn't it true that you honestly don't believe that Jesus was even put on a tree/cross at all?

This is what you wrote in another post to me: “But don't misunderstand my point I believe they thought they killed Jesus but the fact is they didn't kill him nor did they crucify him.”

If this is the case, then there is NO agreement between the Quran and the Bible at all on this issue. None.

Quote

Now the Quran says something else “they killed him not, nor crucified him” and “those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow”

First of all… the evidence shows that They DID kill Jesus and that they DID crucify him. And I listed the evidence for you.

Secondly… those who say that the Jews and the Romans crucified Jesus and killed Jesus are not full of doubts and they are not using conjecture and they are not without certain knowledge. They all point to the EVIDENCE that Jesus was crucified and died. Evidence which you have not rebutted yet.

Anyone can say anything… and that is EXACTLY why evidence and historical facts is so important. Without evidence and without historical facts, anyone can say anything they want. If there is no evidence that the world is spherical, then there is no way you can dispute or prove that flat-earthers are wrong and that the world is actually spherical and not flat.

And if there was NO evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and death… then someone like Muhammad… and you… can say that Jesus was not crucified or killed… and the Christians couldn't dispute Muhammad… or you… and prove to you or Muhammad that you are both wrong. With no evidence, anyone can anything and get away with it because there is no way to prove someone is wrong or right when there is no evidenc
e to debate.

That is why EVIDENCE is so crucial to Christianity and why HISTORY is so crucial to Christianity and why evidence is so important to rational and impartial scholars and intelligent people. It acts like a check… a reality check for people who want to assert something that is factually untrue. People will still believe what they want even if the evidence is against them… but they do so at the expense of their integrity and intellectual honesty… in my opinion.

As Wikipedia says… the historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. History guidelines commonly used by historians in their work, require external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis.

Thirdly… I gave you two questions which need to be addressed because it goes to the heart of your premise that it only appeared to the Jews that they killed Jesus.

Fourthly… why is Surah 4:157 not hearsay?

Quote

So now we can go further:

You can now see that the Quran agrees with the bible on those points but then reveals a previously hidden bit of information. I would also say that this information could have been known to the Disciples as Jesus did declare that he taught them some things in secret.

I don't see where the Bible agrees with the Quran on the issue of Jesus' crucifixion at all. The Bible… and the evidence… shows that Jesus WAS crucified and that he died. But the Quran says NO… NO… NO , Jesus was not crucified and Jesus did not die.

Secondly… the disciples clearly taught that Jesus was crucified and that he died. Both the Bible and the extra- biblical evidence I listed says that Jesus was crucified and that he died. Using the techniques from the historical method and applying them to all the documents relevant to this question, we find that Jesus was crucified and that he died. As Wikipedia identifies for us… these techniques and rules of analysis are things like source criticism, textual analysis, higher criticism, lower criticism, external criticism, internal criticism, eyewitness evidence, Indirect witnesses, Oral tradition, Argument to the best explanation, Statistical inference, “multiple attestation”, “the principle of dissimilarity” and the “the criterion of embarrassment” to name a few.

Subjecting the Bible and the extra-biblical documents I've listed for you, to such rigorous tests as listed above which makes up the historical method, has yielded a treasure trove of historical facts and nuggets for historians and scholars… one of facts being that Jesus was crucified and that he died.

For you to assert that Jesus was not crucified and that he did not die, you need to bring some kind of evidence which can withstand the historical method above. To simply say this information might be a secret… is simply to argue just like some of the Gnostics of old did. The Gnostics completely rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the way to salvation… and some of them even said Jesus was never crucified… that Jesus never died… and some said that Jesus had no body in some cases. And what did all these different Gnostics base this revelation and information on? Secret knowledge. Nothing else. That is all these Gnostics used. Secret knowlege.

So… if we use your argument and logic… that you believe that Jesus crucifixion and death were not true because of some secret that Jesus told to his disciples, it appears that the Quran (and you) is following directly in the footsteps of the Gnostics.

Indeed… many scholars believe that the passage from An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157 which you quoted for us above… is an example of a Gnostic influence upon Muhammad. Some of the Gnostics didn’t believe that Jesus was crucified or that he died… because some of them didn't believe Jesus had a body. I'm not saying you believe that the Jesus didn't have a body, only that many have argued that Muhammad was heavily influenced by the Gnostics… and he simply incorporated some of their teachings into the Quran… like the one some of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not crucified and did not die. That's what some of the Gnostics taught… and now we see that in being taught in the Quran.

Whether or not this is true… it sure is remarkable that the Quran and some of the Gnostics are arguing the same point and using the same rational. The Quran.. .and some of the Gnostics believe that Jesus did not die. And how do both support their position? By claiming the information was a secret that only they had access to. This is a very convenient argument to say the least because there is no way to rationally and objectively rebut it or analysis it or prove it or test it or do anything with it… because it's all a big secret.

Thirdly… for this idea of yours to work… then you also have to postulate that the disciples lied about Jesus dying. And I already went over with you the problems that occur when you start to call people liars with absolutely no proof at all. This is not only immoral… but an ad hominem attack as well.

Quote

Now regarding the crucifixion is it possible that Jesus taught them of this secret?

The human mind is wonderfully creative and can imagine just about anything it wants… and because we can't prove anything in history with mathematical certainty (we can't go back in time to test everything)… anything is possible. But so what? It is also possible that you are not real, but instead you are really only a sophisticated hologram set up by a complex alien society. It is also possible that the past never existed, and that all the memory we have was given to us a few moments ago by another complex alien society who just created us this moment. It is also possible that the earth will end tomorrow. It is also possible that Muhammad lied or was deceived. It is also possible that the Holocaust never happened. It also possible that the earth is actually flat but God is deceiving everyone into thinking that the earth is spherical. It is possible that evil is actually good and good is actually evil. All kinds of things are possible.

But that is not the real question. The real question is not if something is possible (because anything is)… but instead the important question is how probable and/or how likely is something? Can you see this?

So… to answer your question… it is my opinion that when we look at all the evidence I have listed for you (which is not all that is available because you were only asking for extra-biblical sources only)… along with the evidence and facts gleaned from the Bible thru the use of the historical method by historians and scholars… it shows that it is highly improbable and highly unlikely that Jesus taught his disciples that he never died on the cross. So improbable and so unlikely is such a possibility, that it does not even warrant any serious consideration.

There are many problems with such a possibility you are claiming. The least of which it makes Jesus and his disciples and the writers of the Bible to be outright liars and deceivers. Based on what the evidence has shown… and based on what the writers have written in the Bible… billions of people have believed that it is an historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion… and therefore they are going to hell. All Jesus had to do… all Allah had
to do… all God had to do… all the writers had to do… to make sure that truth was told and that people were going to get to heaven… was to be upfront and not keep such a big event a secret.

But if Allah never did anything to clear up this misinformation that Jesus died for 100's of years.. and if the Biblical God never did anything to clear up this misinformation that Jesus died… and if none of the disciples “in on” the big secret never did anything to clear up this misinformation that Jesus died… then all of them are liars and deceivers and immoral and no better than the devil to allow billions of people to go to hell because they were lied to and deceived and had vital information withheld from them for 100's of years.

That is a huge hurdle you need to overcome… not to mention all the evidence which is aligned against the possibility you are asking us to consider. Which is that Jesus never crucified and that he never actually died.

At least give us some evidence that can withstand objective analysis and rational critique so that we can be free of this deception and misinformation about such an important fact. You've done none of this for us… as far as I can see anyway.

Quote

You see, what I am saying is now that we have gotten rid of the Logical fallacies we are now at this point.

There were no logical fallacies on my part as I explained in detail above. But if you still think I did commit some logical fallacies, then I am still willing to see what you have to offer to show that I did and to rebut what my reply to your charges above.

Quote

You will agree there is no “body” or bones to examine, right?

Yes.. .but that fact alone doesn't tell us whether Jesus was crucified and whether Jesus died… AND THAT IS THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING. I'm saying that even though there is no body or bones to examine, the evidence shows that Jesus was crucified and that he died by crucifixion. So the question we are discussing is still on the table because this question of yours is irrelevant to the issue of whether Jesus was crucified and whether he died.

Can you see this? For example, why couldn't someone who hates religion of any kind and say that the reason why there is no body or bones to examine is simply because the body was stolen and hidden and has never been found? Can you see how this question of yours does not have anything to do with whether Jesus was crucified on the cross? Jesus could have been crucified, and yet the body was stolen and hidden. Or maybe as Dominic Crossan (Jesus Seminar) believes, the reason there are no bones or body is because Jesus was buried in a common grave for criminals and wild animals dug it up and ate it.

I'm not saying this happened (I disagree with Crossan)… I'm only trying to show you that your question… as it stands… is meaningless in the present discussion we are having of whether or not Jesus' crucifixion and death happened.

Quote

What other evidence do you have?

? I listed much of the evidence (concentrating only on extra-biblical sources because that is all you asked for) which has persuaded the vast majority of scholars and historians that it is an historical fact that Jesus died. Applying the techniques used by the Historical method… of which I listed for you and which can be found on Wikipedia… and applying them to the Bible itself… there is even more evidence that shows that Jesus was crucified and that he died.

So I don't understand your question. What more do you want? Will any amount convince you that Jesus was crucified and that he died? Or are you of the mind-set that no matter how much evidence is presented to you… you will always believe what you want about Jesus' crucifixion and death no matter what?

But here is another problem I'm having with you when you ask such a question. Do you not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Well… the fact is that there is significantly less testimony of the virgin birth in the New Testament than there is for Jesus' crucifixion and death. Indeed, there is much, much, much less testimony for the virgin birth in the NT than there is for Jesus' crucifixion. And yet here you are asking me for MORE evidence for Jesus crucifixion and death because you are not convinced… while at the same time you will accept the testimony of the virgin birth even though there is virtually NO evidence or testimonies for it.

Why are you so skeptical of the abundance of evidence and testimony for Jesus' crucifixion and death… which has convinced a vast majority of scholars and historians that his crucifixion and death is a historical fact… but you are so willing to accept the virgin birth when there is hardly any evidence and testimony for it? Aren't you being incredibly inconsistent?

Indeed… you won't accept the evidence I've presented to you over the last few posts of mine, and yet you will cling onto a document written 600 years after the fact… and which qualifies as hearsay by your own definition of the word you supplied for us in other posts.

Quote

Two of your Eye witnesses said:

“And they all forsook him, and fled” (Mark 14:49-51)… and…

“But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” (Matthew 26:55-57)

If all the disciples forsook him and fled then they did not witness the actual event.

First of all… these passages you bring up are talking about the event in the Garden where Jesus is arrested. It is at that point… in the Garden… at Gethsemane… that they forsook Jesus and fled. These passages which you bring up say NOTHING about the crucifixion because it is talking about the Garden of Gethsemane.

where Asana… does it say in this verse you bring up that they did not witness the Crucifixion? It doesn't say it all. So this is something you READ INTO the verses because you want to believe what you want to believe.

But anyway… let's go further. The Bible… the same one you are using and from which you gave us the two verses above… clearly states that John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) was there and that he did witness Jesus' crucifixion (John 19:26-27). So right away we can see that while Jesus' disciples may have ALL fled and forsook him at Gethsemane… they did not ALL forsook Jesus at the crucifixion.

And what about Peter? While it doesn't record that he was at the crucifixion, we do know that while he did fled from Jesus at Gethsemane… he did come back and follow Jesus at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And if he was willing to do that… in secret… trying to mingle with the crowd and be as inconspicuous as possible… it is very reasonable to assume that this same person would have been at the cross in the same manner he was in the courtyard. Viewing Jesus in secret among the crowd while trying to be inconspicuous. Is there proof that he did? No. Is it reasonable based on hi
s past behavior? Yes. Did his disciples flee in the Garden? Yes. Did some of them return? Yes. Even to the crucifixion? Yes.

But let's not end there. The same Bible that you are using… and from which you got the verses you are now using in here… that same Bible also tells us that there were other followers of Jesus who were there at the crucifixion. Even if John was the only member of the inner circle (the original 12) of Jesus' followers that was actually at the crucifixion… there were other followers of Jesus there also.

The same Bible you are using says that his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene were all there.

Other witnesses of the crucifixion are Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus… the centurion who believed… and members of the Sanhedrin. And the fact that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea sought Jesus' body for burial indicates that they were very likely there as well. So at the very least we know for sure… because their names were listed… that 6 witnesses were present. And although their names were not specifically mentioned, we also know that Roman soldiers were there… that chief priests, scribes and elders were there jeering at Jesus… and that some of the multitude also jeered at Jesus while Jesus was on the cross.

It is also perfectly reasonable to think that Peter, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were also there. So we have hostile witnesses and followers of Jesus being present at the Crucifixion. All this shows that Jesus' death was witnessed by multiple witnesses. And this would be sufficient for his other disciples and the rest of Jerusalem that Jesus was indeed crucified and that he died.

What I want you to ask you is this… why will you demand evidence of witnesses who were present at the crucifixion (I just provided some for you), and yet you will accept the testimony of Mohammad who came 600 years later and was not even there during Jesus trial, etc? Is eye-witness testimony necessary or not? If it is… then Should we throw out Mohammad since he was not there and thus qualifies as hearsay? Why wouldn't that be a very reasonable thing to do?

Anyway… go ahead and list YOUR eyewitnesses, and let's stack up list against the list I gave you.

——————-

The fact is that the onus is on you to prove that Jesus was not crucified and that he did not die. It's not on the affirming position that he did. And even if you want to argue that it is, I have been giving you evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and his death. Yet you have not given us any except for the testimony of Muhammad who was not present during Jesus' trial or anything that happened afterward until 600 years after the fact… which is clear example of hearsay according to the definition you supplied for us.

Well, I could go on… but I think this will do for now.

God Bless you and I sincerely look forward to your response.

Respectfully
Francis

August 10, 2010 at 3:00 pm#208298

bodhitharta

Participant

Francis,

In regard to your notion that the “gnostics” are autimatically wrong

Wikipedia-

Fact in history

A common rhetorical cliché states, “History is written by the winners”. This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.

E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History?, argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, “like fish in the Ocean,” of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding – all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past – and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).
——————————————————————————————
—-

The fact is you are holding solely to “narratives” and not a single “relic” as a source

Quote

You should rethink this question for two reasons. 1. It begs the question of why would God do or not do anything and 2. you say “your God” which is a complete misunderstanding of God even according to your own belief. There is Only ONE GOD

Quote

Another logical fallacy has popped up here, now you are using the Appeal to consequences and at the same time it begs the question again couldn't God convince the Jews that Jesus was in fact the Messiah? You see what I mean? It's poor reasoning, also who said the consequence of Christians believing in the crucifixion were hell?

Quote

But here is another problem I'm having with you when you ask such a question. Do you not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Well… the fact is that there is significantly less testimony of the virgin birth in the New Testament than there is for Jesus' crucifixion and death. Indeed, there is much, much, much less testimony for the virgin birth in the NT than there is for Jesus' crucifixion. And yet here you are asking me for MORE evidence for Jesus crucifixion and death because you are not convinced… while at the same time you will accept the testimony of the virgin birth even though there is virtually NO evidence or testimonies for it.

The Quran validates for me the Virgin birth of Christ because as I have stated to you the Bible and the Quran is a progressive revelation just as the books of the “NT” are to the “OT” Therefore these books have Special Status theologically.

Flat earth was a Narrative
Obloid Sphere was a relic

an actual measurement is superior to an estimate and you estimate fact through Narratives but Minus a relic it is simply a flat earth narrative.

You certainly did Appeal to Authority, popularity and tradition you also consider narratives to be evidence unless those narratives come from sources you disapprove of i.e. Gnostics, Muslims or anyone else that makes the statement

Now you must also understand that the crucifixion is not the crux of my belief as it is yours. If Jesus was Crucified I would believe it but it would not still mean to me what it means to you because you would then have to show where God allows Human Sacrifice to please Him.

So at this point you “know” that the crucifixon of JESUS occured and I “know” it did not occur, God knows best

Francis,

Would you agree that Jesus was plotted against and that the intent was to KILL/MURDER Jesus?

In the ritual of Sacrifice doesn't the guilty party offer up the sacrifice with thanksgiving? Could Jesus even be a sacrifice?
Who was he offered up to and by who?

August 12, 2010 at 3:18 am#208585

Ed J

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 11 2010,02:00)

Quote (francis @ Aug. 11 2010,00:15)

2)… If your God actually saved Jesus from the cross… then why would your God not make it plain that He did in fact spare Jesus from crucifixion? Look at the logical corner you've painted your God into… you say that your God spared Jesus from the cross… and yet ALL THE EVIDENCE shows that Jesus actually died on the cross. There is so much evidence for the death of Jesus by crucifixion, that the vast majority of historians agree that the Jesus' crucifixion is an historical fact.

Francis,

You should rethink this question for two reasons. 1. It begs the question of why would God do or not do anything and 2. you say “your God“ which is a complete misunderstanding of God even according to your own belief. There is Only ONE GOD

Hi Francis,

book of fraud = quran book = 114(suras)

BD does NOT believe in (YHVH=63) the GOD of “The Bible”=63!
BD believes in satan's lies. (Gal.1:6-9 / 1Cor.4:3-4 / 2Cor.11:4)

Mark 8:31-33 And [Jesus] began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer
many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly.
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and
looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan:
for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm#208818

davidbfun

Participant

Show me the Father (relic) and I'll (Bod) believe.

Jesus showed them the Father and they still didn't believe.

I was the first one there to drive the first nail into my Savior's hand. I gladly washed my sins in Jesus' blood and I was there kissing his feet as he rose from the dead. I said my heart-felt goodbyes and eagerly await his return.

And I am ever so thankful for my Jesus, my Savior (Master and Lord), my Brother, and my friend for dying to bring me my Salvation. By the way, let's not thank God who made it all possible.

And now a word from our sponsor…..The Bible

Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The Professor

August 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm#208856

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 14 2010,01:28)

Show me the Father (relic) and I'll (Bod) believe.

Jesus showed them the Father and they still didn't believe.

And I am ever so thankful for my Jesus, my Savior (Master and Lord), my Brother, and my friend for dying to bring me my Salvation. By the way, let's not thank God who made it all possible.

And now a word from our sponsor…..The Bible

Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The Professor

I'm not sure what you are saying here are you agreeing that there is only One True God? Jesus is His Christ and not God Himself?

August 14, 2010 at 8:57 am#208986

francis

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

In regard to your notion that the “gnostics” are automatically wrong

First of all, I never used the word “automatically” in any post I've written to you… so I'm not sure how you can say I have an “automatic” notion of some kind concerning Gnostics. Secondly, I personally do not consider ANYONE to be automatically wrong or right… without first looking at the evidence they are willing to present for their positive case.

But at the same time, logic and common sense says that mutually exclusive claims cannot both be true. That is to say, two contradictory claims can both be wrong… or one is right and the other is wrong… but it is logically impossible for both clams to be right.

If Christianity says that Jesus was crucified and that he actually died… and yet Islam says that Jesus was never crucified and that he never died… these are two mutually exclusive statements and thus they can't both be right. It is impossible for both to be right. So…either both statements are wrong (like maybe Jesus never existed)… or one of the statements is right (either Christianity or Islam)… but they both cannot be right. Can you see this?

It's the same with contradictory statements made between Gnositcs and Islam…. and also contradictory statements made between Gnostics and Christianity. In both cases, Gnostics make mutually exclusive claims about Jesus that is completely contrary and opposite of what the Quran claims and what Christianity claims.

Now… no rational, honest and objective thinker or historian is going to automatically assume apriorily who is wrong and who is right in such cases. At all times… the honest thinker with integrity will weigh ALL THE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS and then try and judge which claim is right and which claim is wrong. History is not an exact science… and so what Historians deal with is in probabilities.

If you remember what I wrote to you previously… I pointed out that no one can go back in time… no one can go back in history to see for themselves what really happened.

No one can go back in time and see if Jesus really did have a body (some Gnostics did not believe that Jesus had a body)… no one can go back in time and see if Jesus really existed (neither can we know if Muhammad existed for the same reason)… and no one can go back in time and see if Jesus really was crucified and if he really did die (not even Muhammad had the ability to go back in time to know for sure). It's just impossible.

And so historians and Christians and Muslims are left with using probabilities… and trying to make logical and correct inferences from the historical documents in front of them. Historical scholars are looking for the most reasonable findings with the highest probability rating. Some findings are EXTREMELY reasonable and probable because of the volume of evidence for it (like Jesus' crucifixion)… and some findings are EXTREMELY unlikely and less probable (like the Gnostic teaching that Jesus had no body at all).

So… in rebuttal to your above claim about what you think my notion is… I do NOT automatically assume that the Gnostics are wrong. And neither do I automatically assume that Islam is wrong. What I have done is weighed the evidence FOR BOTH POSITIONS… for the Gnostic position and for the Islamic position… and I have found that whereas some of the Gnostics and Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified or that he ever died… the evidence is overwhelming against them. The preponderance of evidence shows that Jesus was crucified and that he did die.

Quote

Wikipedia- Fact in history: A common rhetorical cliché states, “History is written by the winners”. This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.

First of all, if you had read Wikipedia's biography on Carr instead of just selecting the above quote only, you would have noticed a few things. One thing Carr is NOT saying is that facts are not useful. Indeed, in Carr's own historical works like his “History of the Soviet Union” (which is fourteen HUGE volumes) it is bulging and overflowing with facts. Instead, what Carr was advocating is that historians should NOT simply list facts only. Carr was against strict empiricists. He wanted history to be a sociological science and he said that historians should only be interested in causes of historical events insofar as their explanation served the making of policy in the future.

Now… I have a lot of issues and concerns about Carr because he was a leftist liberal who was pro-communist and he thought that people like Stalin and Hitler were a force for good. There was also evidence that he had anti-Semitic beliefs, and in 1955, there was a major scandal that damaged Carr's reputation as a historian. I don't want to commit any Ad-Hominems… so the bottom line is that based on Carr's own historical words, it is obvious that he was not against the listing of facts. He did it himself in his own books. And that is an extremely important fact to keep in mind because it is goes to the heart of our present discussion. Indeed, how can historians be interested in the causes of historical events if they don't have proof that certain historical facts existed in the first place? Can you see this?

Let me put it this way for you… you believe that Muhammad existed… correct? Well… how do you know that he existed at all? Now… if you wanted to convince your family or your son or your friend or me or a Jew or even E.H. Carr himself that Muhammad existed… how would you go about it? What would you do? Wouldn't you be listing EVIDENCE to show that the existence of Muhammad is an historical fact? Of course you would!! But you see, the moment you do that… the moment you list evidence to support the fact that Muhammad really existed… you would be doing EXACTLY what I've been doing all along in here as I list evidence to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified and that he died. Can you see this?

Now… you might want to explore the idea of WHAT the fact of Jesus' crucifixion and death might mean to each of us… (which is what Carr was basically saying)… but you can't d
iscuss what a fact or an event means without FIRST HAVING the facts listed in front of you to discuss in the first place. How can you talk about Muhammad if you can't factually prove he existed? How can you talk about WW 2 if it factually never happened? How can you talk about Jesus if he factually did not exist? See? You need FACTS FIRST before you can discuss what those facts might mean to each of us.

So why you brought up E.H. Carr at all, is beyond me. I'm not sure what you wanted to demonstrate by quoting the above from Wikipedia about Carr. Because right now… I'm not discussing WHAT THE FACTS MEAN in the case of Jesus' crucifixion and death. Instead, I'm first listing them… and then once we have that established… THEN AND ONLY THEN can we go onto the next step and try to figure out what meaning such an historical fact might have for us as individuals.

Quote

The fact is you are holding solely to “narratives” and not a single “relic” as a source

I honestly do not know what this means. So it is near impossible for me to respond since I'm not sure what this sentence means. Using the same source you did above for E. H. Carr… Wikipedia… it says that a “relic” is an object or a personal item of religious significance, carefully preserved with an air of veneration as a tangible memorial. Wikipedia further says that relics are an important aspect of some forms of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Shamanism, and many other religions. Wikipedia also says that the word relic comes from the Latin reliquiae, meaning “remains.” A reliquary is a shrine that houses one or more relics.

With that definition supplied from Wikipedia… I have no clue what you are trying to say above in your quote. Maybe you think I view the cross (tree, etc) as a relic? If this is the case, then all I can say is that you can't have a relic if the relic didn't exist. You can't have a crucifixion of Jesus if the cross (tree,etc) did not exist and if Jesus did not exist. The historical facts have to come first BEFORE you can have a relic. If there are no historical facts for the existence of an event… or for the existence of a person… or for the existence of a relic… then there is nothing to talk about.

How can you talk about Muhammad if he historically never existed? How can you talk about the Quran if it never historically existed? See? You first have to have something/someone to have factually existed, before you can talk about their importance in your life. Doesn't that make sense? I think it does.

Quote

Francis
2)… If your God actually saved Jesus from the cross… then why would your God not make it plain that He did in fact spare Jesus from crucifixion? Look at the logical corner you've painted your God into… you say that your God spared Jesus from the cross… and yet ALL THE EVIDENCE shows that Jesus actually died on the cross. There is so much evidence for the death of Jesus by crucifixion, that the vast majority of historians agree that the Jesus' crucifixion is an historical fact.

Asana
You should rethink this question for two reasons. 1. It begs the question of why would God do or not do anything and 2. you say “your God” which is a complete misunderstanding of God even according to your own belief. There is Only ONE GOD

1)… I don't understand that statement of yours. First of all… God does do things. After all, He did create this world and universe and he did create human beings, etc. And because God is not irrational or illogical or arbitrary, He wouldn't do something for no reason at all. And if He is a good God, if goodness is part of his very nature… then God cannot help but do only good because he has no evil in him.

Now… I have no clue what you think Allah is like… but we as Christians do know that Yahweh is good… and that it is impossible for Yahweh to do evil. Yahweh is perfectly rational and perfectly logical… and part of His nature is not only goodness, but also love. Yahweh is perfectly complete… He is perfectly just… He is perfectly Holy… He loves us… He created this world and this life for us… He cares about us, even down to the smallest detail… He does not want anyone to go to hell… etc. etc.

And as far as this discussion goes, we know that the Quran does say that Allah gave the Jews (and anyone else who believed that Jesus died) a delusion to think that Jesus died by crucifixion. So even Allah does things. Now… if God cares about us and loves us and does not want anyone to go to hell… and if God is perfectly rational and logical and just and full of love and mercy and compassion and good… and if God cannot do evil… then common sense suggests that this delusion that the Quran speaks of, is actually inconsistent with the very nature of God.

A God that is perfectly rational and logical does not do something for no reason at all… so my question of why would God send a delusion that effectively condemns billions of people to hell… in complete contradiction to His very nature… it is a very valid question to ask. So that is why I don't understand your first point.

2)… I said “your God” because I don't believe that Allah and Yahweh are the same God. I mean, I don't recognize Allah as you and the Quran describe Him. Yahweh and Allah do not appear to be the same God in my eyes as I listen to Muslims describe Allah.

Now… I understand that you and I believe in one God… but I think we have a different idea and conception of what this one God is actually like. And that is why I said “your God”… to emphasize and point out the differences of what this one God looks like to each of us. I also said “your God” in a colloquial sense to show that not everyone beliefs in one God like you and I. Some believe in multiple Gods… some believe in a God that is completely different than Allah or Yahweh. So I was using the term “your God” in that sense. Not because I believe there is more than one God… it was to show that there are many ideas of God which completely contradict each other.

Look at what Paul says in 1Corinthians 8:4-7…

“… we know that an idol is nothing (has no real existence) and that there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many of them, both of gods and of lords and masters, Yet for us there is only one God, the Father, Who is the Source of all things and for Whom we have life, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through and by Whom are all things and through and by Whom we ourselves exist. Nevertheless, not all believers possess this knowledge. But some, through being all their lives until now accustomed to thinking of idols as real and living, still consider the food offered to an idol as that sacrificed to an actual] god; and their weak consciences become defiled and injured if they eat it.”

Even Paul understands that in this world, people believe there is more than “one God”. So that is why I said “your God”.

Quote

Francis
Now… if your God saved Jesus from the cross, but did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to supply evidence of what He did… but allowed everyone to be deceived… then isn't your God to blame for the bill
ions of Christians who are going to hell because your God didn't clear up the record and supply all kinds of evidence to show that Jesus did not die?

Asana
Another logical fallacy has popped up here, now you are using the Appeal to consequences and at the same time it begs the question again couldn't God convince the Jews that Jesus was in fact the Messiah? You see what I mean? It's poor reasoning, also who said the consequence of Christians believing in the crucifixion were hell?

—-> First of all… I did not commit the fallacy of “appeal to consequences”. Here is how “appeal to consequences” is defined according to Wikipedia:

“Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.”

Asana… look carefully at the last paragraph. It says that in logic, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstone of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism. This should be enough to convince you that I have not committed this fallacy.

But even if it is not… I challenge you to show me how my statement commits this fallacy. Look at my statement again.

Doesn't your Quran says that God sent a delusion so that it was made to APPEAR that Jesus was killed (4:157)? Doesn't the Quran also say that Allah sendeth whom He will astray (14:4)? And doesn't it also say that those that Allah misleads can not be helped (4:88)? Am I wrong?

Indeed, when I wrote: “…if your God… allowed everyone to be deceived…” (like the Jews and the Christians)… you didn't even deny that is what the Quran says.

Anyway… the above definition for an “Appeal to Consequences” talks about CONCLUSIONS being made for a premise. I never concluded anything. If you read what I actually wrote to you… you'll see that I'm ASKING YOU A QUESTION. Can you see that?

The question I had asked you was… if your God saved Jesus from the cross… and sent a delusion (it was made to appear to them… 4:157) and allowed people to be deceived that Jesus died on the cross… then ISN'T your God to blame for the billions of Christians who are going to hell because your God didn't clear up the record and supply all kinds of evidence to show that Jesus did not die? See the question I was asking? I did not make any conclusions. A question is not a conclusion. Can you see this? “Appeal to Consequences” is an argument that CONCLUDES a premise to be either true or false. Do you see that part of the definition supplied by Wikipedia?

How can I be concluding something when I'm asking you a question? See? So I did not commit the fallacy as you believe.

Quote

… at the same time it begs the question again couldn't God convince the Jews that Jesus was in fact the Messiah? You see what I mean? It's poor reasoning…

I never assumed that God… thru the use of free will… could convince the Jews… or anyone else… that Jesus was in fact the Messiah. So I never begged the question as you claim. God cannot convince someone of anything… if that person doesn't want to believe at all. That is what free will means.

But this is a far different issue than God purposely sending a delusion so that sincere, honest people believe in wrong things that will effectively send them to hell. Not only that, but the fact that many Jews did become Christians… and that many Jews did believe that Jesus was the Messiah… this shows that many Jews could have been convinced… and were convinced by the evidence. So it's not poor reasoning.

Quote

…also who said the consequence of Christians believing in the crucifixion were hell

Then please help me to understand what you believe. Will Christians go to hell for believing in the Crucifixion and death of Jesus… and for believing that Jesus is the Messiah… and for believing that Jesus is Lord… and for believing that Jesus died for me… and for believing that Jesus created the universe… and for believing that Jesus is divine… and for believing that it is only through Jesus' work on the cross that a person can get into heaven… and for believing that the Quran is not a progressive revelation from God?

Quote

Francis
But here is another problem I'm having with you when you ask such a question. Do you not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Well… the fact is that there is significantly less testimony of the virgin birth in the New Testament than there is for Jesus' crucifixion and death. Indeed, there is much, much, much less testimony for the virgin birth in the NT than there is for Jesus' crucifixion. And yet here you are asking me for MORE evidence for Jesus crucifixion and death because you are not convinced… while at the same time you will accept the testimony of the virgin birth even though there is virtually NO evidence or testimonies for it.

Asana
The Quran validates for me the Virgin birth of Christ because as I have stated to you the Bible and the Quran is a progressive revelation just as the books of the “NT” are to the “OT” Therefore these books have Special Status theologically.

Flat earth was a Narrative
Obloid Sphere was a relic

an actual measurement is superior to an estimate and you estimate fact through Narratives but Minus a relic it is simply a flat earth narrative.

I don't understand the last part about flat earth… obloid sphere… relic… narrative… etc. I don't even know how an obloid sphere is a relic if we use the definition for relic as supplied by Wikipedia.

Anyway… just saying that the Quran is a progressive revelation doesn't make it so. Can't you see this? Using your logic of just asserting something… then I can write a book tomorrow about the Quran… and say that this new book is a progressive revelation after the Quran and so you must believe what I write. See?

Just because Muhammad wrote a book 600 years after the Bible doesn't mean it is a progressive revelation. You need to prove this is the case… or at least present a positive case which we can examine… not
just simply assert it. Anyone can assert anything they want… even 5 year old children can assert all kinds of things. So this is not convincing at all.

And doesn't the fact that you can't even prove that Jesus wasn't crucified and that Jesus never died… doesn't this demonstrate the Quran is not progressive? Doesn't this prove that the Quran is nothing more than Muhammad's narrative? Doesn't this prove that Muhammad's narrative about Jesus is hearsay?

Quote

First of all… I never did appeal to authority… and I never appealed to popularity… and I never appealed to tradition. I made the effort of DEMONSTRATING that I never appealed to them by giving you proof. How do you respond? Not by showing how my proofs were invalid. No. You never rebutted any of my evidence that I presented to show that I was not guilty of appealing to authority/popularity/tradition. Not once did you ever rebut what I wrote.

All you did was RE-ASSERT and keep SAYING that I am guilty of these fallacies without giving ANY proof for it. Is not this a narrative on your part?

Anyway… I'm going to try this one more time and go thru this with you again. I will supply the definition for each of these fallacies from Wikipedia and show how I have not committed the fallacies. If you are not going to rebut my evidence… then please don't write back and simply ASSERT again that I have committed them. Saying I am guilty of these fallacies doesn't make it so… anymore than Muhammad saying that Jesus never died on the cross also doesn't make it so.

Here are the definitions for each of the fallacies which can be found on Wikipedia…

Argument from authority
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true.
2.Source A is authoritative.
3.Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

Now… please Asana… Please… please… please read the above definition and compare it with what I've been writing to you all along!!!!! If I NEVER… NEVER… NEVER… NEVER supplied the evidence that has persuaded the vast majority of Critical scholars that Jesus was crucified… then.. and ONLY THEN would I be guilty of appealing to authority. I supplied the evidence BECAUSE I realize that “an authoritative claim can turn out to be false” like the definition says!!! That is why I encouraged you to look at the evidence itself so that you wouldn't have to accept the authorities on just their word alone. Can't you see this?

Not only that… but look at the last paragraph of the definition for this fallacy. It says that there is NO FALLACY INVOLVED in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true!!! Did you see that?

The fallacy only rises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. I never claimed this in principle… but instead, I supplied the evidence so that you CAN CRITICIZE the evidence if you wanted by showing how the evidence was invalid or false. That is also why I kept bringing up the historical method… because it is thru the historical method that the scholars sifted the evidence and gleaned what were historical facts. You NEVER rebutted any of this stuff I presented to you for consideration.

so… I never was guilty of appealing to authority. If you disagree, then present evidence. Don't just make more assertions that I did commit this fallacy without supplying any evidence. If you do nothing but assert that I have done something, isn't that simply a narrative?

Appeal to tradition
Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the “is/ought” fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we've always done it this way.”

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds. The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false. The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.

The moment I brought up evidence to support the facts… I showed that I was not guilty of appealing to tradition. My entire case… my entire belief in Jesus being crucified is based squarely on the evidence… not on tradition.

Where have I had said or implied that the “old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced” without introducing evidence to show that 2,000 years later, the vast majority of scholars STILL believe that Jesus was a real person and that He was crucified? It is the EVIDENCE… not tradition that atheists and agnostics and non-believers among critical scholars… which has convinced them that it is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified and that He died. What tradition would the atheists be agreeing with?

Indeed… I will ask you this question. Why isn't this progressive revelation that you speak of… why isn't your progressive revelation NOT an example of claiming something is good because it is new? See?

I'll ask it again… in bold words so that you won't accidentally miss this question…

WHY ISN'T YOUR PROGRESSIVE REVELATION (THE QURAN) NOT AN EXAMPLE OF CLAIMING SOMETHING IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS NEW?

Anyway… I never was guilty of appealing to tradition. If you disagree, then present evidence. Don't just make more assertions that I did commit this fallacy without supplying any evidence. If you do nothing but assert that I have done something, isn't that simply a narrative?

Argumentum ad populum
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: “If many believe so, it is so.”

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, ap
peal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”), argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger”.

Now… where I have done any of the above? I have repeatedly… repeatedly… repeatedly stated in my posts to you that it is the EVIDENCE which has persuaded the vast majority of scholars that Jesus was crucified and that He died. I have REPEATEDLY stated this over and over again to you. Not once did I make the conclusion… or implied that the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion is true simply because many or all scholars believe it. I kept giving you the evidence and even stated REPEATEDLY that it was the evidence that persuaded the scholars of Jesus Crucifixion… AND NOT BECAUSE THEY LOOK AT THEMSELVES AND SAY THAT BECAUSE MANY OF THEMSELVES BELIEVE IT IS AN HISTORICAL FACT, THEN IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

So… I never was guilty of “Argumentum ad Populum”. If you disagree, then present evidence. Don't just make more assertions that I did commit this fallacy without supplying any evidence. If you do nothing but assert that I have done something, isn't that simply a narrative?

Quote

Asana
Now you must also understand that the crucifixion is not the crux of my belief as it is yours. If Jesus was Crucified I would believe it but it would not still mean to me what it means to you because you would then have to show where God occurred and I “know” it did not occur, God knows best

1)… the crucifixion is NOT the crux of your belief? I thought the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified? Are you saying you disagree with the Quran? I don't understand your comment here.

2)… If Jesus was crucified, doesn't this mean you disagree with Muhammad and the Quran? And if Jesus was crucified, what would that mean to you that would be different than what it would mean to you? Because I'll tell your right now what Jesus' crucifixion means to me. It means that Jesus was crucified. It is that simple. Jesus was crucified, and Jesus died by crucifixion. This is an historical fact which had happened to many people before Jesus… and after Jesus in Roman society. There were many crucifixions at the time… Jesus being one of them. That is what the crucifixion means to me. Now what does it mean to you?

3)… What do you mean that you know that the crucifixion did not occur? Because of a narrative in the Quran? Because of a hearsay statement by Muhammad? Because of blind faith? Because you WANT to believe?

The difference between you and I is that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to show that Jesus was not crucified… whereas I have presented all kinds of evidence to show that it did occur. To me… this appears to be a huge difference between you and I.

If you have no evidence that Muhammad is correct about the crucifixion of Jesus never happening… then how could you disagree with me if I were to say that Muhammad never existed? How would you show that I'm wrong and that Muhammad actually did exist? Can't you see that the moment you present evidence to show that Muhammad existed, you would be doing what I've been doing all along in here as I present evidence to show that Jesus was crucified?

This is why I don't think you are being consistent. You will disagree with my approach about using facts and evidence… but you will then use that same approach to defend the proposition that Muhammad was a real person who actually existed. Wouldn't that be inconsistent?

Quote

Asana
Francis, Would you agree that Jesus was plotted against and that the intent was to KILL/MURDER Jesus?

Yes. But the difference between you and I is that you don't believe the plot succeeded, whereas I believe that the plot did succeed. You have brought absolutely no evidence to show that the plot did not succeed, whereas I have presented a wealth of evidence to show that the plot did succeed.

Quote

Asana
In the ritual of Sacrifice doesn't the guilty party offer up the sacrifice with thanksgiving? Could Jesus even be a sacrifice? Who was he offered up to and by who?

I don't think Jesus was sacrificed (not in the terms I think you are thinking). Instead… I believe that Jesus laid down his own life as a selfless act of sacrifice for others like a hero does… like a cop or a soldier who will smother a grenade with their body to save others around them. It is that kind of sacrifice that I speak of… it is that definition of the word sacrifice that I am using.

Remember that words can have multiple meanings within a single language, and between different languages.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not an example of ritual sacrifice.. but an act of “self-sacrifice”… which is an altruistic act. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward… it is distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty. It is in that sense that I believe Jesus' act on the cross was a sacrifice. Jesus had no duty or need or even loyalty to human beings which would have prompted his self-sacrifice. His self-sacrifice on the cross was a completely selfless act… a completely altruistic act… prompted by nothing but love and mercy. Jesus gained nothing… God gained nothing… because neither one needs anything… because God does not need anything. That is why Jesus' self-sacrifice is a perfect example of love. The Bible says that there is no greater example of love than to voluntarily lay down your life for another… and that is what Jesus did on the cross. There is no greater example of love than what Jesus did on the cross…. because it was completely selfless and completely motivated by love.

Wikipedia says that sacrifice is commonly known as the practice of offering food, objects (typically valuables), or the lives of animals or people to the gods as an act of propitiation or worship. Well, God did not offer up Jesus as an act of propitiation or worship to Himself. Jesus voluntarily offered himself up as a sacrifice. God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice and people did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice.

Because we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. This is a very important fact to remember. It's for this reason why Christians believe that Jesus is God in flesh. Christians believe that Jesus is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God for those who will accept that gift.

Notice how it is not God who is offering up Jesus. It is Jesus… as God… who is making the self-sacrifice. God is offering himself as a pro
pitiatory offering. God… thru Jesus… is making the self-sacrifice.

If Jesus was not divine… if Jesus was a man only… then it would appear that God was in some respect engaging in human sacrifice. But if Jesus was divine… then Jesus is making a self-sacrifice… God is is making the self-sacrifice.

Wikipedia says the term “sacrifice” is also used metaphorically to describe selfless good deeds for others. It is that sense that I use the word sacrifice in connection with Jesus.

Wikipedia also defines human sacrifice as the act of killing one or more human beings as part of a religious ritual (ritual killing). God did not kill Jesus as a part of a religious ritual. Humans did not kill Jesus as a part of a religious ritual. So by Wikipedia's definition… Jesus does not qualify as a human sacrifice.

Further… Wikipedia says that in human sacrifice, the victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased, for example as a propitiatory offering. Jesus was ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease Yahweh… God. Roman crucifixion was not a pleasing manner of killing to God… and so this is another example of why Jesus was not a human sacrifice.

It was the selfless act of Jesus that pleased God… not the manner in how it was done. The method was horrible… and there was no ritual.

Could Jesus even be a sacrifice? Yes… if it was a self-sacrifice done out of love… like a soldier or a cop or a hero who voluntarily lays down their own life to save another person.

Who was Jesus offered up to and by who? Jesus offered himself up as a sacrifice to God to take our place. Human beings did not offer up Jesus to anyone. And God did not offer up Jesus to Himself.

————————

Well Asana… we seem to be at the same spot as when we first started in here. We can't seem to agree as to whether or not Jesus was crucified. I have presented a lot of evidence for my positive case… and yet you have not presented any evidence for your position nor presented a positive case for your belief that Jesus was not crucified.

1 Peter 3:15 says: “But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy and acknowledge Him as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.”

I have tried to give you a logical defense for what I believe… for Jesus' crucifixion in this present discussion… and I have tried to do it courteously and respectfully. Logical defense in 1Peter is derived from the Greek word “apologia' which is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason. In the Classical Greek legal system the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. So the logical defense which Peter is speaking of is something like what you would see in a court of law. Both sides are giving their position using logic, history, archeology, and science.

That is what I've tried to do in this discussion with you.

What I'm beginning to discover is that as long as you can't show why we should believe Muhammad… writing 600 years later… that Jesus was not crucified and that Jesus did not die… then why would I need to debate scriptures and Suras with you or with a Muslim?

And this is what I am afraid might happen in here if you can't show us why we should believe you on such a central issue that Quran stands on. Why should Christians in here invest a huge amount of their time and effort in debating scriptures and Suras with you when you can't give an “apologia”… a logical defense for your belief that Muhammad was correct about Jesus' non- crucifixion and Jesus not dying?

I wouldn't expect any less from myself if an atheist asked me tough questions about my faith. That is why I enjoy having lively discussion with atheists because they always ask very tough questions that challenge my faith and they force me to defend myself thru a logical defense… thru an apologia as 1 Peter 3:15 instructs.

And so I respectfully challenge you as atheists have challenged me. And just as atheist have made me think very carefully about my faith… I hope the discussion we have been having will also make you think very carefully about your faith. And I hope the net result will be, at the very least, you helping me to see why I should believe Muhammad words about Jesus… since he wrote 600 years after Jesus' life.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

August 14, 2010 at 9:38 am#208991

TimothyVI

Participant

Whew!
nobody can accuse Francis of not being thorough.

Good post.

Tim

August 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm#209007

davidbfun

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 14 2010,15:59)

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 14 2010,01:28)

Show me the Father (relic) and I'll (Bod) believe.

Jesus showed them the Father and they still didn't believe.

And I am ever so thankful for my Jesus, my Savior (Master and Lord), my Brother, and my friend for dying to bring me my Salvation. By the way, let's not thank God who made it all possible.

And now a word from our sponsor…..The Bible

Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The Professor

I'm not sure what you are saying here are you agreeing that there is only One True God? Jesus is His Christ and not God Himself?

Hello Bod,

I'm sorry about the confusion. My first statement is exactly what the Jews were asking of Jesus to prove, which is the same thing that came from you.

Yes, you are correct that Jesus is not God and that is why I put:

Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Did you read my posts in the Member's profiles section?

The Professor

Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 161 through 180 (of 197 total)

←1 2 3…8910 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Are you happy that jesus died for you?

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account