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

Status
Not open for further replies.
badger said:
A 'dirty' spear!
You cannot know that.
I don't think that Roman soldiers had dirty spears, RJM.
Click to expand...
It would risk infection, the main medical problem in those days. The wound would be wide and ragged, requiring surgery to repair the lung. A neat incision with a clean medical instrument would obviously be preferred.
badger said:
Clearing a lung was probably crucial in saving Jesus, not killing him.
Click to expand...
If death was so close that the incision couldn't wait until Jesus was down from the cross, it negates the 'short crucifixion' argument?
badger said:
If the soldiers had wanted to be certain that Jesus was dead they would have bust his legs, so he could lift, couldn't breath.
Click to expand...
But he was already dead, so they ran him through with a spear, just to make sure he wasn't faking? They could not risk trouble by allowing Jesus to survive? An unconscious man would not be able to breathe on the cross?

There may have been an element of mercy by spearing Jesus instead of breaking his legs, but it's extremely unlikely the spear thrust was designed to save his life, imo
 
Last edited:
Cino said:
He doesn't come across like that to me, in the Gospels. I mean, John the Baptists was a vocal critic of the Hellenizing elites, and he was a major influence on Jesus. Also, the way his teachings are reported in the synoptic Gospels is, in spite of all his beef with the Pharisees, much more similar in form and "flavor" to the sages of the Talmud, and not much like Plato at all.

Just my views, based on my reading these texts on my own, no claim to scholarly authority.
Click to expand...

I do think that Jesus's teachings have a stronger base in Judaism. I didn't mean to downplay that. This is especially seen in Matthew.

I just think some of the Hellenistic parallels were emphasized by the Romans, particularly by figures like Constantine and Origen. I do think there are clear influences from Cynicism (if not Stoicism) and Platonism throughout Luke and John which, while probably not very reliable sources on what Jesus actually taught, do show how he was depicted very early on in Christianity and what sorts of teachings were attributed to him.

If we limit the scope of our sources to just Mark, which I think is the gospel most likely to contain genuine history, then I agree that the Hellenic influence is less pronounced. I count around 9 parables in Mark:

New Wine Into Old Wineskins
The Strong Man
The Sower
The Lamp Under a Bushel
The Growing Seed
The Mustard Seed
The Wicked Husbandmen
The Budding Fig Tree
The Faithful Servant

Out of these, only the last one really has any ties to Hellenic philosophy and really only tentatively.
 
RJM said:
It would risk infection, the main medical problem in those days. The wound would be wide and ragged, requiring surgery to repair the lung. A neat incision with a clean medical instrument would obviously be preferred.
If death was so immanent that the incision couldn't wait until Jesus was down from the cross, it negates the 'short crucifixion' argument?
But he was already dead, so they ran him through with a spear, just to make sure he wasn't faking? They could not risk trouble by allowing Jesus to survive? An unconscious man would not be able to breathe on the cross?

There may have been an element of mercy by spearing Jesus instead of breaking his legs, but it's extremely unlikely the spear thrust was designed to save his life, imo
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
All in your opinion.
 
Ella S. said:
I do think that Jesus's teachings have a stronger base in Judaism. I didn't mean to downplay that. This is especially seen in Matthew.

I just think some of the Hellenistic parallels were emphasized by the Romans, particularly by figures like Constantine and Origen. I do think there are clear influences from Cynicism (if not Stoicism) and Platonism throughout Luke and John which, while probably not very reliable sources on what Jesus actually taught, do show how he was depicted very early on in Christianity and what sorts of teachings were attributed to him.

If we limit the scope of our sources to just Mark, which I think is the gospel most likely to contain genuine history, then I agree that the Hellenic influence is less pronounced. I count around 9 parables in Mark:

New Wine Into Old Wineskins
The Strong Man
The Sower
The Lamp Under a Bushel
The Growing Seed
The Mustard Seed
The Wicked Husbandmen
The Budding Fig Tree
The Faithful Servant

Out of these, only the last one really has any ties to Hellenic philosophy and really only tentatively.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew.
He supported the Jewish laws, many of which had been disregarded.
He was in support of the Jewish working people.
A Galilean working class Jew would not have been much interested in the culture and religion of the Jewish Ruler, nor the Occupying Government. Just surviving was an 'each moment' struggle.

The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John do have genuine anecdotes, reports and info but they are steeped in Christian spin as well, I think.
 
badger said:
He was in support of the Jewish working people.
A Galilean working class Jew would not have been much interested in the culture and religion of the Jewish Ruler, nor the Occupying Government. Just surviving was an 'each moment' struggle.
Click to expand...
This is based on the assumption that Jesus was just another failed revolutionary. However he was far more than that. He was a spiritual teacher concerned more with the soul than with material conditions, as in the sermon on the mount. He taught with such authority in the temple at a young age, that the elders listened and marvelled at his wisdom.

Not saying anyone has to accept it or believe it, but to deny and try to take away the spiritual aspect of Jesus is just la-la-land, imo
 
RJM said:
This is based on the assumption that Jesus was just another failed revolutionary. However he was far more than that. He was a spiritual teacher concerned more with the soul than with material conditions, as in the sermon on the mount. He taught with such authority in the temple at a young age, that the elders listened and marvelled at his wisdom.

Not saying anyone has to accept it or believe it, but to deny and try to take away the spiritual aspect of Jesus is just la-la-land, imo
Click to expand...

I'd love to discover how Luke received the info about a 12 yr old in the Temple.

I'd like to read all those lessons that he 'taught' as a boy.

I believe that Jesus made speeches to the people, rather than taught them. The essence of a good teacher is that s/he can be understood, and I ask you, 'could the people understand Jesus easily?'. The gospels tells us that Jesus had difficulty in communicating with the average person, even with his disciples.
 
badger said:
I'd love to discover how Luke received the info about a 12 yr old in the Temple.
Click to expand...
Do you mean he had to be there for it to be true?
badger said:
I'd like to read all those lessons that he 'taught' as a boy.
Click to expand...
They're not recorded. Was every word spoken in the temple written down?
badger said:
I believe that Jesus made speeches to the people, rather than taught them. The essence of a good teacher is that s/he can be understood, and I ask you, 'could the people understand Jesus easily?'. The gospels tells us that Jesus had difficulty in communicating with the average person, even with his disciples.
Click to expand...
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matthew 6:7-14)
The Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Luke 10:25-37

How hard is any of that to understand?
Doesn't sound much like political revolutionary speeches to me ...
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Do you mean he had to be there for it to be true?
They're not recorded. Was every word spoken in the temple written down?
Click to expand...
So how did Luke know about these events, which weren't written down, nor spoken by any? Surely he would have made mention of his source?

“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matthew 6:7-14)
The Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7
Click to expand...
And the above is a brilliant speech which refers to the main part of his campaign. I need to get to my computer for my whole answer....can't write on a mobile well.

The entire prayer is the epicentre of his campaign, yet this seems to be lost to some. Please let me get to a keyboard tomorrow morning.
 
badger said:
I'd love to discover how Luke received the info about a 12 yr old in the Temple.

I'd like to read all those lessons that he 'taught' as a boy.
Click to expand...

I am not too skeptical about the account outside of the fact that it comes from Luke and I don't see Luke as a reliable source. If Jesus was highly intelligent, it's quite possible. It's quite common for highly intelligent kids to know and understand the material being taught better than their teachers for one reason or another.

If he really was that intelligent, it would certainly explain why he sounds a little arrogant in some passages and why he so readily calls everyone around him fools, lol. That kind of ego is pretty common among the gifted.
 
RJM said:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Click to expand...
Too much in one post to answer....... and so, just this:-

This whole prayer is speech outlining laws for Jews to obey. To be spoken and lived, everyday:-

Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Question:-What is the meaning of Hallow in the Bible?
Answer:- Hallowed means to keep holy and set apart.
Set apart from others by the Laws given to Moses. Thus:-
LEVITCUS {20:22} Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. {20:23} And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and
therefore I abhorred them. {20:24} But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people.
--------------------------------------------
Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
THE BIRTH OF THE LAWS
EXODUS {18:20} And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
---------------------------------------------
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts,
LEVITICUS {19:9} And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. {19:10} And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather [every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God.
......and.........
Exodus {22:25} If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Leviticus {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
------------------------------------------
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Deuteronomy {15:1} At the end of [every] seven years thou shalt make a release. {15:2} And this [is] the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth [ought] unto his neighbour shall release [it;] he shall not exact [it] of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD’S release.
Deut {15:7} If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: {15:8} But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, [in that] which he wanteth.
-----------------------------------------
And lead us not into temptation,
Mark {4:19} And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
---------------------------------------------------
but deliver us from evil.
Mark {10:23} And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! {10:24} And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust
in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! {10:25} It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Good point .. most people get distracted by dogma.
Click to expand...
Yes........... for many a repeated mantra yet with no thought or understanding about what they say.

I knew a very professional successful Irish Catholic who once told me that she loved going to mass when it was spoken in Latin...she felt very much in the presence of 'holiness' during those services, but that when the church turned to services in English it didn't feel the same for her.

I asked her,'Can you understand Latin?'
She replied, 'Oh no! it just gave me a nice feeling'.
 
I was not intending to carry on the conversation. However:
badger said:
This whole prayer is speech outlining laws for Jews to obey. To be spoken and lived, everyday:-
Click to expand...
Of course.

But it seems you are taking it further to assert that the Lord's Prayer is not a spiritual message, and that Jesus was not a spiritual teacher at all? He was just a failed revolutionary, unconcerned with the spiritual laws that can often seem contrary to natural material laws – and all his words were really just political?

The Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7
Is just a practical call to material revolution?
Yet Jesus was at all times clear to separate himself from the ways of the world, from concern with material things.

It is trying to deduce a meaning from the gospels that they do not contain, imo

It is 100% the opposite of the message of the Jesus of the gospels. As always it needs to play the 'get out of jail card' that those parts that don't fit the theory are false, corrupted, mistranslated, interpolated, scribal error etc, while those that do fit the theory are all fine and good.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 18: 33-37 read full chapter

I will probably not continue to respond to the argument that Jesus was never in his own time regarded as a spiritual figure.
 
Last edited:
badger said:
Yes........... for many a repeated mantra yet with no thought or understanding about what they say.

I knew a very professional successful Irish Catholic who once told me that she loved going to mass when it was spoken in Latin...she felt very much in the presence of 'holiness' during those services, but that when the church turned to services in English it didn't feel the same for her.

I asked her,'Can you understand Latin?'
She replied, 'Oh no! it just gave me a nice feeling'.
Click to expand...
Many things work best in the original language. The Quran is read in original Arabic and most translations have the original Arabic text alongside the vernacular. It's the same with Sanskrit or Chinese scriptures.

It was possible to go anywhere on the planet and on the same day hear the same Latin mass for that day, regardless of clunkiness of translation into the vernacular -- which is why the Catholic missal exists, with a vernacular translation alongside the Latin.

Italian opera does not have the same power in translation. French literature does not have the same subtlety in translation, and neither does Shakespeare.

The loss of the Latin mass is a sore point amongst many Catholics.

There is a thread about it here:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19793/
 
RJM said:
I was not intending to carry on the conversation. However:
Of course.

But it seems you are taking it further to assert that the Lord's Prayer is not a spiritual message, and that Jesus was not a spiritual teacher at all? He was just a failed revolutionary, unconcerned with the spiritual laws that can often seem contrary to natural material laws – and all his words were really just political?

The Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7
Is just a practical call to material revolution?
Yet Jesus was at all times clear to separate himself from the ways of the world, from concern with material things.

It is trying to deduce a meaning from the gospels that they do not contain, imo

It is 100% the opposite of the message of the Jesus of the gospels. As always it needs to play the 'get out of jail card' that those parts that don't fit the theory are false, corrupted, mistranslated, interpolated, scribal error etc, while those that do fit the theory are all fine and good.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 18: 33-37 read full chapter

I will probably not continue to respond to the argument that Jesus was never in his own time regarded as a spiritual figure.
Click to expand...
I need a computer to reply. Will do so later. :)
 
badger said:
I need a computer to reply. Will do so later. :)
Click to expand...
As said, I find the argument completely specious that Jesus was not regarded in his own time as a spiritual teacher along the lines of Buddha and other great spiritual lights. It's an entertaining game to make of Jesus all sorts of things that the gospels clearly do not support, but not to be taken seriously.

It ends up with constantly having to pull up the gospel passages that dispute the whatever theory being put forward about Jesus and having them dismissed as innacurate or misunderstood or whatever, while passages supporting the argument are used, often from the same paragraph that later says exactly the opposite -- as in the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion trying to prove that he did not die on the cross, etc.

The same person who uses the spear wound as proof Jesus did not die on the cross, will say there was no eye-witness to the death. But it will be accepted there was an eye-witness to the spear thrust -- and in fact the (only) writer who reports the spear thrust, says in the same passage that he was eye-witness to the death.

It goes around in circles, dismissing passages that don't suit, accepting those that do.

It already became repetitive and circular several pages back in this thread. So, unless there's anything new ...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top