30 verses of Bible say " Jesus did not die on the Cross".

[Cino]

But that is a prediction 3000 yrs before the birth of Christ. Interesting that Jesus is mentioned as virgin born Isa, but in another thread Ijaz lists a string of virgin born saviours -- so how can this prediction be produced as a record of anything Jesus did and said in India? I don't find that to be convincing evidence.

I think scholars agree that the text portion is a couple hundred years old at best.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavishya_Purana

(Yeah, wikipedia - but even I as an amateur interested in Indic languages can see that the text is not written in Vedic sanskrit but a later form)

But it does contain a tradition of words spoken by Jesus. Those are quotes. The tradition may be very old, even if the text is not.

 

[RJM]

If somebody wants to search about, why and how Jesus went to India or Kashmir, after the crucifixion. It is also mentioned in the Hindu religious book
https://www.indiadivine.org/the-prediction-of-jesus-christ-in-the-bhavishya-purana/
Chinese book (The Glass Mirror), and Buddhism books.
Please come again to the topic of this thread.

I do not find the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross convincing. Is there a reason for a person to spend hours chasing evidence for someone else's thesis?

The duty is on the person proposing the theory to present evidence to support it, and then to treat with 'peer review' questions and comments about that evidence?

 

[RJM]

But it does contain a tradition of words spoken by Jesus. Those are quotes. The tradition may be very old, even if the text is not

Noted

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

I presented more than 30 verses of the bible and there are 65 reasons (in post #186), which guide that Jesus did not die on the cross. I think these proofs are enough for a "truth seeker". I can not convince (change the heart of) anybody. God can help you. thanks.

 

[Cino]

I can not convince (change the heart of) anybody

And on this forum, you should not. We've been through this before, Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi.

 

[RJM]

I presented more than 30 verses of the bible and there are 65 reasons (in post #186), which guide that Jesus did not die on the cross. I think these proofs are enough for a "truth seeker". I can not convince (change the heart of) anybody. God can help you. thanks.

Your so-called proofs have all been disproved, and your only response is to keep repeating them.

So perhaps as a 'truth seeker' it is you who could have a change of heart? Unless you can produce more convincing evidence to support your theory?

 

[Ella S.]

I presented more than 30 verses of the bible and there are 65 reasons (in post #186), which guide that Jesus did not die on the cross. I think these proofs are enough for a "truth seeker". I can not convince (change the heart of) anybody. God can help you. thanks.

Is the implication here that anyone unconvinced by the arguments you set forward must not be honestly seeking truth?

I think it would be easy to misinterpret such a statement as being intentionally antagonistic and dismissive but I don't think that's true here.

I think you genuinely believe that God would guide anyone earnestly seeking truth to find the right conclusions. You know that you're earnestly seeking truth and these are the conclusions that you think God lead you to. Therefore, anyone else who does not reach the same conclusions cannot be earnestly seeking the truth.

Unfortunately, I think this view is unrealistic. Partially because I think God doesn't exist but also because I know that multiple people earnestly seeking the truth can arrive at different conclusions. In science, this is integral to peer-review and alternative hypotheses. How many theoretical interpretations of quantum physics are there, for instance?

I think you should consider the more likely possibility that your arguments simply aren't convincing to the other users here.

 

[Thomas]

Pilate, the Governor, was thoroughly convinced of the innocence of Jesus Christ, he, therefore, had a pre-planned scheme to save Jesus’s life.

Because he thought Jesus was innocent?

Unlikely. He didn't really care for the Jews, as long as they kept to their place and paid their taxes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because he thought Jesus was innocent?

Unlikely. He didn't really care for the Jews, as long as they kept to their place and paid their taxes.

Attitudes toward Pilate and his wife varied by region. In general, Pilate was revered in the Eastern churches, and despised in the Western churches. Pilate's wife, as Saint Procla, is venerated by the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Procla on October 27, while the Oriental Orthodox Church celebrates both her and her husband as saints on June 25. The earliest references to Procla's conversion to Christianity date from the second-century Christian apologist Origen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate's_wife

Hello, hello .. my favourite brother again .. Origen.

 

[Thomas]

Attitudes toward Pilate and his wife varied by region.

Yes, as the wiki article states, legends began to spring up concerning himself and his wife.

And again, as the article says, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and Luke all mention tension and violence between the Jews and Pilate's administration, he was hardly a friend of the Jews.

But what reason could there be for Pilate to arrange the escape of Jesus? Where's the benefit for him?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But what reason could there be for Pilate to arrange the escape of Jesus? Where's the benefit for him?

It would seem to me that he was familiar with the Jewish faith, and knew about John the Baptist and Jesus.
Yes .. he was a Roman governor, but we don't know for sure what were his thoughts about G-d and gods.

Again, it would seem to me, that the benefit for avoiding the crucifixion of Jesus would be a possible avoidance of trouble in an afterlife.
I feel sure that he was aware that Jesus preached of an afterlife, as did John the Baptist.

There must be some reason for the Christians of the East to think well of them.

 

[Thomas]

It would seem to me that he was familiar with the Jewish faith, and knew about John the Baptist and Jesus.

Did he? How do we knot that?

Yes .. he was a Roman governor, but we don't know for sure what were his thoughts about G-d and gods.

No, but the idea of a grand conspiracy is unlikely.

Again, it would seem to me, that the benefit for avoiding the crucifixion of Jesus would be a possible avoidance of trouble in an afterlife. I feel sure that he was aware that Jesus preached of an afterlife, as did John the Baptist.

But that's a contemporary mindset. You seem to be reading quite a lot into the next-to-nothing we know about the man, but he does seem to be quite brutal.

There must be some reason for the Christians of the East to think well of them.

Yes ... but nowhere do they suggest he was complicit in a cover-up. Not even the later, apocryphal writings do that ... in fact I'm not sure anyone does? The Gnostics offered alternative texts, but again, I'm not sure a Pilate-organised conspiracy numbers among them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But that's a contemporary mindset. You seem to be reading quite a lot into the next-to-nothing we know about the man, but he does seem to be quite brutal.

I don't think so. He was a Roman governor over Judea.
Are you trying to tell me that he learned nothing about "the faith" during his time?
You think that he was not aware of John the Baptist who was beheaded a couple of years earlier?

It seems that "the Romans" liked to think that he was "one of them", as opposed to the "Orientals".
We have just inherited such beliefs. You accuse other Christians of spreading untrue "legends" .. hmm.
Rome is not in the heart of Jerusalem.

 

[Thomas]

I don't think so. He was a Roman governor over Judea.
Are you trying to tell me that he learned nothing about "the faith" during his time?
You think that he was not aware of John the Baptist who was beheaded a couple of years earlier?

I'm sure he was well briefed on Jewish affairs.

What I see no sign of is any sympathy towards the Jews – what scant evidence we have points the other way – but I do see the sign of someone making sure Rome doesn't get blamed for the execution of a local hero because the Jewish authorities want him dead. It's going to be on their head, not his.

The vilification on Pilate in the West, and his edification in the East, are both mythologies spun long after the event.

 

[Cino]

The vilification on Pilate in the West, and his edification in the East, are both mythologies spun long after the event.

I remember reading that he got into political trouble over his (excessively cruel even by Roman standards) handling of events in Judea, and was exiled to Gaul. There is a hill in Switzerland (part of Gaul at the time) with a legend that this is where he died.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm sure he was well briefed on Jewish affairs.

What I see no sign of is any sympathy towards the Jews – what scant evidence we have points the other way..

Well, that doesn't mean he would have no sympathy for Jesus, does it !
After all, it was the Sanhedrin who wanted rid of him.

 

[RJM]

Well, that doesn't mean he would have no sympathy for Jesus, does it !
After all, it was the Sanhedrin who wanted rid of him.

Sympathy is one thing. A judge may often sympathize, but still be obliged to fulfil his function as an agent of the state? The question is not whether Pilate had sympathy for Jesus, but whether he would risk his own neck and position in a hastily contrived conspiracy involving several people -- too many people for it to stay hidden for long. Lots of people involved.

It doesn't make sense. Why did Jesus reappear to his closest followers, including his own brother, after the crucifixion and then skip off by sea leaving them to spread the message to Paul and others, and go on to give their lives for the belief that he had not only died, but risen from the grave --

 

[RJM]

Pilate may have later become a Christian. Who knows. But the New Testament insists Jesus died on the cross. It is repeatedly clear. There's no way to get from the NT that Jesus did not die on the cross. It's just not there, imo

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Why did Jesus reappear to his closest followers, including his own brother, after the crucifixion and then skip off by sea..

I don't believe that he did skip off to sea.

Wouldn't those in power have wondered how Jesus had seemingly escaped death?
..or do you think think they were unaware of his reappearance?

 

[Thomas]

After all, it was the Sanhedrin who wanted rid of him.

And Pilate needed to keep the Sanhedrin sweet. It would appear that he and Caiaphas were hand-in-glove on a couple of projects.