- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so. Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that.
And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)Medical Evidence
In light of the eyewitness evidence from the gospels, there is strong medical evidence that confirms the historicity of Christ’s death as presented in the Gospels. Before examining the medical evidence, as a general point the Romans knew how to crucify their victims. To suppose that the Romans would have allowed Jesus to escape the cross, is nonsensical. The Romans knew how to kill someone and they knew when someone was dead.
Concerning the specific medical evidence, the gospels report specific conditions that a crucified victim would have experienced. First, in Jesus’ pre-crucifixion experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus sweated “great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). According to Alexander Metherell an M.D. and Ph.D., “This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis.” 6 He later acknowledges that tremendous stress like the kind that Jesus suffered could have produced this effect.
Second, Jesus’ desire, while on the cross, to receive a drink confirms the fact that he likely was experiencing another known medical condition called hypovolemic shock, which would have been caused by his beating. According to Metherell, hypovolemic schock “. . . does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn’t there; second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse; third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left; and fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume.” 7
Third, the evidence from the spear thrust confirms the idea that Jesus did indeed die on the cross. Concerning this Matherell states that hypovolemic shock causes a rapid heart beat which results in fluid around the heart called a pericardial effusion. 8 The Gospel of John testifies to this fact in John 19:34 which says, “. . . one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” Metherell continues, “The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid – the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion – came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid like water.” 9 Therefore, given the above specific medical evidence, the Journal of the American Medical Association is justified to conclude, “. . . interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.” 10
This is all taken from Lee Strobel, right?
It is hilarious the way he uses the word “proof” as if asserting the gospel accounts is sufficient.
It looks to me like another dishonest attempt to enhance the believability of a fictional account through use of plausible detail.
You would have to have an eyewitness actually write that he saw clear fluid coming out of the side of a crucified Jesus before it would be appropriate to interpret that observation in terms of the alleged means of Jesus's death.
Stuart
John 19:34
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.Since “water” is a “clear fluid”, is this not an eye-witness account of clear fluid coming out of the side of Jesus?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2012,04:26) John 19:34
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.Since “water” is a “clear fluid”, is this not an eye-witness account of clear fluid coming out of the side of Jesus?
Who wrote John?Stuart
One of the 12 Apostles, since the writer recorded himself as reclining along with Jesus at the last supper.
We can rule out Peter and Thomas due to context. And we can rule out Judas Iscariot also.
The writer of this gospel, the writer of 1 John, and the writer of Revelation all refer to Jesus as “the Word of God”. We know the latter book was written by someone named “John”, and we know that someone named “John” was present at the last supper. The use of “the Word of God” is not concrete, but I suspect the book was written by the Apostle John.
In many Alexandrian mss, Matthew 27:49 reads, “The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out”
So now we have another eyewitness.
But Stu, would it even matter if the eyewitness was an unknown observer? Your earlier comment didn't mention that we had to know the life history of the eyewitness – only that there had to be an eyewitness account, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2012,13:11) One of the 12 Apostles, since the writer recorded himself as reclining along with Jesus at the last supper.
Verse please.Quote The writer of this gospel, the writer of 1 John, and the writer of Revelation all refer to Jesus as “the Word of God”. We know the latter book was written by someone named “John”, and we know that someone named “John” was present at the last supper. The use of “the Word of God” is not concrete, but I suspect the book was written by the Apostle John.
Er, how exactly do we know someone named “John” was present at the “last supper” (that expression doesn't appear in the New Testament)?. The gospel of John is thought to have been modified significantly over a long period of time and doesn't bear close agreement with the synoptics. The author of John didn't know his way around Palestine. Irenaeus distinguishes between the writer of the gospel of John and John the apostle. And, of course, the Gospel of Dan Brown identifies the “disciple whom Jesus loved” as Mary Magdalene, and he could be as right as any other speculator on that question. Acts 4:13 describes Peter and John as unschooled, and yet the gospel is a fairly intellectual account.Quote In many Alexandrian mss, Matthew 27:49 reads, “The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out” So now we have another eyewitness.
But Stu, would it even matter if the eyewitness was an unknown observer? Your earlier comment didn't mention that we had to know the life history of the eyewitness – only that there had to be an eyewitness account, right?
No, I did say it needed to be the writing of the eyewitness. The lack of a name is not necessarily fatal to the credibility of the account, but it does leave a lot of explaining to be done by the person suggesting that the account is the writing of an eyewitness. If there are eyewitness-written accounts in the New Testament, then why do none of them claim to be as such?Not sure how you can claim “eyewitness” testimony regarding the alleged piercing of Jesus in Matthew, when it is only mentioned in John.
Stuart
Stu,
John 13:23 tells us that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was reclining with him at the last supper. Matthew 26:20 tells us that only “the twelve” were there with Jesus at the last supper. (That counts Mary Magdelene out.) And we know from Mark 3:13-19 that “John”, the son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve, and therefore, there was indeed a “John” at the last supper.
As for Matthew being an eyewitness, I gave you the information. And as for the disciples being “eyewitnesses”, it is said in more than one scripture that “these things we witness to because we have seen them with our own eyes” – or words to that effect. (1 John 1:1 is one of these scriptures.)
Stu
It seems you like to believe what is pleasing,you did not assist in all the research teams in all fields right so you believe what the wrote ,right
Yes you do ,so you lean to one side ,their is more people that died for the truth of scriptures than any one died for a simple book of science,wander why I stand by what I wrote above, which I don't believe has been addressed by either of you. Your traditional view is an extremist one, and not in keeping with either the majority scholarly view or the scholarly consensus view.
It is ironic terraricca that you would accuse me to believing what is pleasing. I am only interested in what is true. Do you not think I would be amazed and keen to know more if it could be substantiated that a human has been successfully executed to the point where any doctor would have pronounced him dead by all modern medical definitions, only then to come back to life? You do me a disservice, this would be of great interest to me, and probably anyone.
However, it just isn't true, and you cannot claim there were eyewitnesses to Jesus. No one has named one yet, at least not one who has said “my name is and I saw Jesus do this…”. Not ONE.
So rather than banging on about how convincing you find hearsay, how about one of you try to be convincing for me? All these amazing stories, but no one actually claims to have seen any of it.
Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 03 2012,14:09) Stu their is more people that died for the truth of scriptures than any one died for a simple book of science,wander why
That is a good question T.
Why would God author a book that would have hundreds of thousands of people slaughtering each other over it's contents.Tim
the contents is all about how bossy bums, boss bossy bums. you have to have a faith in a God..haven't ever noticed anyone in the scroptures that makes a “no such thing as a god” into a blood curdling battle of hate?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2012,02:08) I stand by what I wrote above, which I don't believe has been addressed by either of you. All these amazing stories, but no one actually claims to have seen any of it.
Didn't I just give you one of the many scriptures that say the disciples were eyewitnesses to these events? Didn't I address your concerns?Stu, if you read an ancient account of Alexander the Great, or some other historic figure, you most likely accept those accounts without question.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the historical accounts written in the Bible?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 04 2012,04:19) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2012,02:08) I stand by what I wrote above, which I don't believe has been addressed by either of you. All these amazing stories, but no one actually claims to have seen any of it.
Didn't I just give you one of the many scriptures that say the disciples were eyewitnesses to these events? Didn't I address your concerns?Stu, if you read an ancient account of Alexander the Great, or some other historic figure, you most likely accept those accounts without question.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the historical accounts written in the Bible?
By the time we get to “words to that effect” we know you haven't posted anything like evidence of an eyewitness account. As you should know, the “words” you mean are patently those of people who were not eyewitnesses. Try quoting the most convincing one, in your opinion. I would be really convinced by a non-christian eyewitness of Jesus, and especially so by one who wrote begrugingly about what he saw Jesus do, against that writer's own interest. But the ONLY independent sources there are were only writing down what christians told them.Regarding Alexander, I might have given the example of Socrates before: there is a very good scholarly case to be made that there never was an historical person called Socrates. I am quite happy with that. I realise there is uncertainty and ambiguity concerning historical figures, and that is usually driven by the nature and culture of the people who surrounded those figures.
I am interested in the ideas of Socrates, whether or not they were invented by a committee who just named themselves thus, or whether there really was one sagely figure. You can't say the same about Jesus though, can you. It is not a matter that you can just discuss the ideas of Jesus, you actually have to have him really existing, and killed by the Romans for him to give you what you apparently need from him. And so his historical existence, plus the mythology of Jesus is all essential to you. Otherwise you would probably be following some other guru.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2012,15:58) Try quoting the most convincing one, in your opinion.
Acts 2:22
Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.What does Peter mean by the words, “as you yourselves know”? It would have been an odd statement to make, and probably the end of his speech if these non-believing Jews to whom he spoke didn't actually see some of these signs and wonders. They would have likely said, “We didn't see anything like you're describing! What are you even talking about? Hey fellas, let's nail this lunatic up to the nearest tree!”.
But instead they continued to listen to Peter, who went on to say,
Acts 2:32
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.I assume by “we are ALL witnesses”, Peter was talking about himself and the other 11 Apostles mentioned in verse 14, and was not including the unbelivers to whom he was speaking in that number.
Stu, you mentioned that there are those who think a man named Socrates didn't even exist. Are there any reliable historical sources to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2012,15:58) By the time we get to “words to that effect” we know you haven't posted anything like evidence of an eyewitness account. As you should know, the “words” you mean are patently those of people who were not eyewitnesses.
Conversations with you are like jumping through hoops, Stu. That's why I generally avoid them. After all, I'm not a circus animal put on this earth for your entertainment.To every claim you've made thus far, I've shown you scriptural evidence that refutes it. Yet it is never good enough for you, is it?
1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.It seems that the things the author of 1 John is about to proclaim in his book are things he and others have SEEN WITH THEIR OWN EYES. And these are some of the things he goes on to proclaim in his book:
1:7
……the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins……….2:25
And this is what he promised us—eternal life.3:8
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.3:16
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.4:9-10
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.John apparently heard these teachings with his own ears, and saw these events with his own eyes.
I'm now done with this discussion. I have better things to do with my time than to keep jumping through your ever shrinking hoops.
Here's my imitation of you, Stu:
Mike, show me proof of this certain thing.
After I do, then it's, No, I meant proof written by a WOMAN!
And so I find that proof. Then it's, No, I meant proof written by a 27 year old woman on a Tuesday!
It just never ends. Stu, know one thing:
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”You have apparently not been drawn to the Son by the Father yet. Perhaps it will someday happen, perhaps not. In the meantime, you are content with your beliefs and I am content with mine. There is really no need for further discussion at this time.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 04 2012,04:18) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 03 2012,14:09) Stu their is more people that died for the truth of scriptures than any one died for a simple book of science,wander why
That is a good question T.
Why would God author a book that would have hundreds of thousands of people slaughtering each other over it's contents.Tim
TThe slaughter was not for the truth of God ,that was violent men who did this,and that is not the killing I was questioning ,it was people that voluntary accepted dead over live for the sake of the truth of God,
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35) The slaughter was not for the truth of God ,that was violent men who did this,and that is not the killing I was questioning ,it was people that voluntary accepted dead over live for the sake of the truth of God,
So this is “killing for the truth of god”?1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.
Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 04 2012,11:29) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2012,15:58) Try quoting the most convincing one, in your opinion.
Acts 2:22
Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.What does Peter mean by the words, “as you yourselves know”? It would have been an odd statement to make, and probably the end of his speech if these non-believing Jews to whom he spoke didn't actually see some of these signs and wonders. They would have likely said, “We didn't see anything like you're describing! What are you even talking about? Hey fellas, let's nail this lunatic up to the nearest tree!”.
But instead they continued to listen to Peter, who went on to say,
Acts 2:32
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.I assume by “we are ALL witnesses”, Peter was talking about himself and the other 11 Apostles mentioned in verse 14, and was not including the unbelivers to whom he was speaking in that number.
Stu, you mentioned that there are those who think a man named Socrates didn't even exist. Are there any reliable historical sources to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?
You ask what Peter meant as if we have agreed we know what the writer of Acts was talking about. Before you consider Acts, you should look at the start of Luke:Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,The writer is saying that what he is writing has been passed on to him by people he considers to have been eyewitnesses. So Luke – Acts is not the account of an eyewitness.
In verse 3 he claims that he has a perfect understanding of things. Now consider the nature of that “perfect understanding” in regards to the most important “miracle” of all, the execution of Jesus and his subsequent walking around again.
Who does the writer of Luke think put the robe on Jesus? What did the sign over Jesus' head say? What were the last words of Jesus? What did the Centurion call Jesus when he died? Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand? The writer of Luke disagrees with at least one other gospel account on every point (and other points too). So in Acts when he is writing about what ‘Peter’s’ audience knew about the miracles of Jesus, it seems he didn’t have the full story himself.
In any case, what words would you expect the writer of Luke – Acts to make up for his character Peter? Those ones, I would have thought. This is historical fiction, and so I’m not sure why you are asking me to comment on its credibility. You know full well the word ‘witness’ in christian mythology means someone willing to prostyletise regardless of whom he has met in his life. It doesn't necessarily mean eyewitness.
It is people today who suspect Socrates may not have been a real person, there is no ancient text that suggests it as far as I know, so why on earth would you ask for the same kind of thing in regards to Jesus? You know the ancient Greeks were skeptical. I’m not, regarding the existence of the historical man called Jesus. I think the circumstantial evidence is in favour of a real ancient Palestinian preacher called Jesus about whom early christians invented a christ mythology. I wrote that already. Do you ever read anything I write?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,16:06) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35) The slaughter was not for the truth of God ,that was violent men who did this,and that is not the killing I was questioning ,it was people that voluntary accepted dead over live for the sake of the truth of God,
So this is “killing for the truth of god”?1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.
Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You seem more interested in the reaction that you can get from
others than the truth of the matter; Uzzah's death was more
likely an accident from the improper handling of “The Ark”.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35) The slaughter was not for the truth of God ,that was violent men who did this,and that is not the killing I was questioning ,it was people that voluntary accepted dead over live for the sake of the truth of God,
So this is “killing for the truth of god”?1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.
Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?
Stuart
stuhow many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,
what the scriptures do to some people is just a mystery ,some will react some will not and burn the book ,
but I never ear anyone act like this for a scientific book ,right
so their must be something special in their that is not in the other books.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
