Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

[muhammad_isa]

He told them he was going to die.

I don't think he did. He most likely told them that he was going to be arrested, and strung up on a cross.
God Almighty knows exactly what he said to his disciples.

..would it be possible to address the points raised in this thread, including the historical evidence presented?

Yes, absolutely. I have tried to do just that.
I'm not accusing early Christians of lying or not being sincere and pious.
I am saying that Christians, in general, became to have beliefs that were mistaken.

There are millions of people with mistaken beliefs until this day, whatever religion they profess to follow.
G-d knows best who follows truth.

 

[RJM]

am saying that Christians, in general, became to have beliefs that were mistaken

But historical evidence indicates they already had these beliefs within about 20yrs of the crucifixion. Probably earlier, as Peter was still alive when Paul was writing.

Now it is possible to throw out all this evidence.

But does it not come down to perhaps it is the Quran that may be mistaken?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But historical evidence indicates they already had these beliefs within about 20yrs of the crucifixion..

What difference does that make?
People with such beliefs could well have been in the majority [ or maybe not ]
There were many different beliefs floating around, as you know.

 

[RJM]

What difference does that make?
People with such beliefs could well have been in the majority [ or maybe not ]
There were many different beliefs floating around, as you know.

It means they heard it from Christ's close followers, and they were prepared to die for it. Probably they had a good reason? They weren't just gullible airheads?

It is all evidence* for the fact of the death on the cross. Is there historical evidence for the authenticity of the Quran passage? Many different beliefs do float around?

*Evidence is not the same as proof

 

[RJM]

Over to others ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

It means they heard it from Christ's close followers..

It doesn't !

Modern scholarship is engaged in an ongoing debate as to the proper designation for Jesus' first followers. Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity. Some modern scholars have suggested the designations "Jewish believers in Jesus" or "Jewish followers of Jesus" as better reflecting the original context. The inclusion of non-Jews led to a growing split between Jewish Christians (i.e. the Jewish followers of Jesus) and non-Jewish Christians.
- wiki -

1. "In the earliest stage the Christian community was made up of all those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah."

I assume you agree with that.

2. "Jewish Christians like the Ebionites had an Adoptionist Christology and regarded Jesus as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity"

..so the question is, did all early Christians believe that Jesus had "risen from the dead"?
Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't .. as I say, who exactly knew the details of the apparent crucifixion was probably very few indeed.
But they didn't all believe that Jesus was divine .. THAT IS A FACT !

 

[Thomas]

It is interesting that the Qur'an is in agreement with some of the apocrypha.

Well from my POV the apocrypha informs the Qur'an.

It is obvious why Christians in general, particularly staunch Catholics/Orthodox would object to Jesus not actually dying.

Well that's what the Scripture says. Really, it's incumbent on others to prove otherwise, but of course, proof either way outside of Scripture is unavailable.

i.e. The whole faith evolved to making Jesus' death/resurrection into the most significant pillar of faith ...

The two fundamental Mysteries are the Incarnation and Resurrection.

... that provides a 'get out of jail free card' [ died for sins and so on ]

C'mon, you know better than that. Is that how Muslims see submission to Allah? I don't think so.

Is Jesus' resurrection more important than The Oneness of G-d ?

There is no contradiction between the two. They are both 'facts of faith'.

 

[Thomas]

Pilate could have purposely made it look as if he died on the cross, by instructing his men to do so, but not to actually kill him. This would not contradict the Qur'an, and might also account for why Jesus would not want to publicly broadcast what exactly happened, in order to protect a righteous man.

LOL, Pilate was hardly a righteous man. Islam is stretching the bounds of credulity if it thinks that. It would also require Jesus put a man's reputation before God, which again is unlikely.

 

[muhammad_isa]

LOL, Pilate was hardly a righteous man. Islam is stretching the bounds of credulity if it thinks that. It would also require Jesus put a man's reputation before God, which again is unlikely.

In Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Pilate became the focus of a large group of New Testament apocrypha expanding on his role in the Gospels. In many of these, particularly the earlier texts from the Eastern Roman Empire, Pilate was portrayed as a positive figure. In some, he became a Christian martyr. In later, particularly Western Christian texts, he was instead portrayed as a negative figure and villain, with traditions surrounding his death by suicide featuring prominently.
-wiki-

..and God knows best.

 

[RJM]

It doesn't !

Modern scholarship is engaged in an ongoing debate as to the proper designation for Jesus' first followers. Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity. Some modern scholars have suggested the designations "Jewish believers in Jesus" or "Jewish followers of Jesus" as better reflecting the original context. The inclusion of non-Jews led to a growing split between Jewish Christians (i.e. the Jewish followers of Jesus) and non-Jewish Christians.
- wiki -

1. "In the earliest stage the Christian community was made up of all those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah."

I assume you agree with that.

2. "Jewish Christians like the Ebionites had an Adoptionist Christology and regarded Jesus as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity"

..so the question is, did all early Christians believe that Jesus had "risen from the dead"?
Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't .. as I say, who exactly knew the details of the apparent crucifixion was probably very few indeed.
But they didn't all believe that Jesus was divine .. THAT IS A FACT !

Of course the early followers were Jews -- what else could they be -- until Paul took it to gentiles? Of course there were divisions and sects. But these people were willing to die for Christ whom they were convinced had died on the cross. It was very soon after, when Peter and others were still alive. Would you be prepared to be eaten by lions because of some wandering storyteller's invented character -- some 3rd hand fairy tale?

The beliefs of the earliest Christians in Rome coupled to the unbiased accounts of Roman historians like Tacitus is good evidence for the death on the cross.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well that's what the Scripture says. Really, it's incumbent on others to prove otherwise, but of course, proof either way outside of Scripture is unavailable..

You only say that because you regard the Qur'an as fiction.
Many people regard the Bible as fiction.

I don't consider either of them as fiction.
Furthermore, I have nothing to prove. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
It is up to you to look for "evidence", and make up your own mind, which I assume that you have done already.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course the early followers were Jews -- what else could they be -- until Paul took it to gentiles? Of course there were divisions and sects. But these people were willing to die for Christ whom they were convinced had died on the cross.

Maybe they thought that he had "died on the cross" or maybe they didn't.
Being willing to die for their beliefs would have nothing to do with his apparent crucifixion, in any case.
The early Christians were Jews who did not believe that Jesus was divine.

Please .. please, don't keep repeating these inaccurate innuendos.

 

[Thomas]

No, I think not. They objected to his professed authority from G-d.

Indeed, it's all of a piece. John's account provides insights. Caiphas and the Council saw the risk of Jesus becoming a popular figurehead of revolt (cf John 11:50). The arrest of Jesus had to take place away from the people, as there would be uproar if it occurred in the public eye. That's why they wanted an insider to betray Him.

He wouldn't be the first [ or last ] prophet to have been opposed by "the elders".

Exactly, they'd be well used to sitting those out. Jesus was different.

Jesus was absolved by both Pilate and Herod of any attempt to challenge the authority of The Romans.

Well, Pilate saw no challenge to Rome, but the Council clearly did. Blasphemy was a charge by which they could undermine His followers, but that's the point, Jesus claimed authority to do things that only God could do. Jesus had declared His own divinity.

 

[RJM]

Maybe they thought that he had "died on the cross" or maybe they didn't.
Being willing to die for their beliefs would have nothing to do with his apparent crucifixion, in any case.
The early Christians were Jews who did not believe that Jesus was divine.

Please .. please, don't keep repeating these inaccurate innuendos.

Please re-read the part of my post you are using to accuse me of innacurate innuendoes

Of course the early followers were Jews -- what else could they be -- until Paul took it to gentiles? Of course there were divisions and sects. But these people were willing to die for Christ whom they were convinced had died on the cross.

The early followers were Jews who followed Jesus and therefore questioned many of their previous beliefs. Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene for instance

Of course being willing to die would have a lot to do with Christ's crucifixion. People willing to die would certainly like to know that what they were dying for was reasonably true?

There will always be 'maybes' which is a reason to request reasonable supporting evidence. Not proof, but reasonable evidence.

Also please link the whole article when quoting wiki, to enable others to read the full thing and to confirm the sources.

 

[Thomas]

Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity.

Well, it began when He started His public ministry, around 30AD. The term 'Christian' as a distinct designation was in play by 70AD, most likely because of increasing tensions between Jews and followers of Christ. We know there was disturbances in Rome in the 60s between the two, so Christianity was established in Rome by 60AD. I'd say Christianity was established at the Nativity. Mary clearly believed. So did Joseph. So did Elizabeth, as did her son John (the Baptist).

But this is all largely irrelevant to the main point

1. "In the earliest stage the Christian community was made up of all those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah."

That does not preclude a belief in the Death and Resurrection.

"Jewish Christians like the Ebionites had an Adoptionist Christology and regarded Jesus as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity"

Yes, but they were never mainstream.

so the question is, did all early Christians believe that Jesus had "risen from the dead"?

Well clearly there was a variety of belief. There always is, same for Islam. Those closest to Jesus did. There was sufficient belief for it to become the mainstream belief. That some didn't is not really proof of anything. Did everyone believe in Mohammed? No, and that's a fact, but it does not thereby dismantle Islam or disprove its claim to Revelation.

 

[Thomas]

Really, this boils down to a Christian trying to convince a belief according to the New Testament, against a Muslim convinced of the Quran.

There is no proof either way, there is just faith, and conviction. The Quran is not infallible in Christian eyes, so if doesn't amount to a proof.

 

[Thomas]

In Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Pilate became the focus of a large group of New Testament apocrypha expanding on his role in the Gospels. In many of these, particularly the earlier texts from the Eastern Roman Empire, Pilate was portrayed as a positive figure. In some, he became a Christian martyr. In later, particularly Western Christian texts, he was instead portrayed as a negative figure and villain, with traditions surrounding his death by suicide featuring prominently.
-wiki-

But in none of them does Jesus survive the Cross.

 

[Thomas]

You only say that because you regard the Qur'an as fiction.

I regard it as having absorbed information in good faith.

I don't consider either of them as fiction.

The Bible, particularly the New Testament is not so much fictional, as mistaken/misguided, then?

Same for the Quran.

Furthermore, I have nothing to prove. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Indeed.

I'd rather hope, in this world, that the People of the Book can put differences aside.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Jesus claimed authority to do things that only God could do. Jesus had declared His own divinity.

No. I'm sure you can come up with a verse or two to "prove" this, but I'm certain he did not proclaim himself to be God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course being willing to die would have a lot to do with Christ's crucifixion.

Hmm .. I don't know why you think it is so obvious .. it's not to me.
Muslims are most certainly prepared to die for their beliefs