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

[badger]

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 ... perhaps others will be interested in continuing the discussion ...

I will have to reply when on my computer.
But we have t hone round on circles because k don't expect that you've ever seen that review of the Lord's prayer before.

 

[RJM]

I will have to reply when on my computer.
But we have t hone round on circles because k don't expect that you've ever seen that review of the Lord's prayer before.

I'm not denying it as one possible interpretation amongst many others of the Lords Prayer. There are thousands of sects and religions who each interpret it in the light of what they want it to mean.

It comes in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which I find difficult to interpret as a political address, even ignoring the context of it. Each to his own.

I'm saying I personally consider the argument that Jesus was not a spiritual teacher is too vacant to be seriously entertained,

Sorry, no rudeness or offence intended. Others may be interested in that line of reasoning @badger but I am not

 

[Thomas]

Good point!
I fully expect that the people that Pilate was most influenced by were Caesar, the Syrian Legate....and his wife!
So any pressure put on Pilate by his wife is very interesting indeed.

OK, but if we allow this, we have to allow the Biblical accounts, or vice versa.

I only mention it because in some there is a tendency to dismiss Scripture when it contradicts a pet theory, and when it does not, it's irrefutably genuine.

I am skeptical, and one might wonder whether the dream was authored by the Deceiver, to thwart Christ's self-determined fate?

 

[Thomas]

But Pilate sympathetic attitude is absolutely a most important piece of evidence.

It would be remarkably out of character, though ...

Pilate did not get on with the Temple authorities ...

But he did with Caiaphas.

 

[Thomas]

But yes, I have every belief that Pilate wanted to save Jesus.

Good heaven's, why?

I think he was very frightened of the mass of followers that Jesus had....... They welcome him to Jerusalem and I think they supported him all week long.

Quite. And Pilate didn't want to be the one to present them with a martyr. If the Jews want him dead, it's down to them ...

And they – His followers – believed Jesus was dead ... ?

 

[Thomas]

A way of clearing the lungs of fluids and blood is to pierce a lung in through a lower rib, so that spear stab was probably a life saver.

Or, it's a way of killing someone ...

 

[Thomas]

Yep.
That spear stab was an incision to clear a lung. imo.

Tricky though, you being armed with a spear, he being up on a cross ... I'd like to know the earliest reports of such an incision to drain fluids, too ... I mean a simple stab in the lung is also mortal, isn't it?

 

[Thomas]

And the idea that a Roman leader (certainly not a centurion, more likely a decurian) spoke out that Jesus was surely God is just laughable. And who on earth stood there, listened to this and later got it written in to the gospels?

OK, but it's no more unlikely than Pilate engaging in an entirely uncharacteristic conspiracy to save Him, which would have required briefing the execution squad, etc., and the legionnaire would have been reckless to have stabbed him, if, as some argue, his current condition was survivable ...

... and then the clincher being, everyone thinks he's dead anyway, so what did Pilate actually achieve?

 

[Thomas]

Pilate could not control this area of revenue.

What about the Temple Tax that financed his aqueduct?

 

[Thomas]

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

Luke has quite a lot of stuff that could only have come from Mary herself – and the traditiopn says he knew her.

We have no evidence that he did, but nor any that he didn't. He certainly could have, and he seems to try and be accurate ...

 

[Thomas]

The gospels tells us that Jesus had difficulty in communicating with the average person, even with his disciples.

Personally I believe He could be challenging, and there's evidence the disciples had a far tougher time of it than the people. And he amassed a huge following ... then again, charismatic preachers are not always 'easy to follow' and the masses do not trouble themselves with whether or not the speaker is making sense ...

 

[Thomas]

I asked her,'Can you understand Latin?'
She replied, 'Oh no! it just gave me a nice feeling'.

But she knows the mass.

There's umpty-seven good reasons why this ...

 

[Thomas]

Not having a go at you @badger, just for balance.

I tend to find the 'explanations' as wild as the dogma, myself ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

... and then the clincher being, everyone thinks he's dead anyway, so what did Pilate actually achieve?

Not being guilty of killing a son of G-d?!
Not everyone is a barbarian, you know.

 

[Ella S.]

I only mention it because in some there is a tendency to dismiss Scripture when it contradicts a pet theory, and when it does not, it's irrefutably genuine.

I try so hard to not do this and I'm sure I still fail at it from time to time.

 

[RJM]

Vodun and Santeria and all sorts of others quote Jesus; Rastas and Hare Krishnas and Wiccans quote Jesus; Moonies and every other cult and sect quote Jesus (no offence meant to any other faith) -- the list fills pages over millennia, and the discussions and opinions continue right here.

Everyone wants a piece of Jesus, but only the piece that suits them.

The Christian monastic orders remain the true keepers of the flame, imo

 

[Ella S.]

Vodun and Santeria quote Jesus, Rastas and Hare Krishnas and Wiccans quote Jesus; Moonies and every other cult and sect quote Jesus -- the list goes on for pages over two millennia, and the discussions and opinions continue right here.

Everyone wants a piece of Jesus, but only the piece that suits them, imo

To be honest, I don't really see why outside of the obvious point that Christianity is widespread and most of these groups are just trying to adapt to cultures saturated in Christianity.

What little of the teachings attributed to Jesus that I think are relevant to my life has been explained better by philosophers that predate him.

One of the reasons I broke away from Gnosticism was because I couldn't get away from the fact that Autogenes was constantly associated with Jesus, who I think was probably a historical Jewish messianic claimaint. I went towards Gnosticism originally because I thought it would get me away from Lord Elohim and prophecy only to find that they were still obsessed with someone claiming to fulfill the prophecies given by Lord Elohim.

I've mentioned before that I don't think Jesus was a very good philosopher and is better seen as a revolutionary figure within Judaism. Since I'm not Jewish to begin with, why am I supposed to care about some Jewish reformer 2000 years ago?

It seems that a lot of the above groups agree, too. There's quite a bit of girth to the movements seeking to de-Christianize Vodun, Lukumi, Hare Krishna, and Wicca.

 

[RJM]

To be honest, I don't really see why outside of the obvious point that Christianity is widespread and most of these groups are just trying to adapt to cultures saturated in Christianity.

What little of the teachings attributed to Jesus that I think are relevant to my life has been explained better by philosophers that predate him.

One of the reasons I broke away from Gnosticism was because I couldn't get away from the fact that Autogenes was constantly associated with Jesus, who I think was probably a historical Jewish messianic claimaint. I went towards Gnosticism originally because I thought it would get me away from Lord Elohim and prophecy only to find that they were still obsessed with someone claiming to fulfill the prophecies given by Lord Elohim.

I've mentioned before that I don't think Jesus was a very good philosopher and is better seen as a revolutionary figure within Judaism. Since I'm not Jewish to begin with, why am I supposed to care about some Jewish reformer 2000 years ago?

It seems that a lot of the above groups agree, too. There's quite a bit of girth to the movements seeking to de-Christianize Vodun, Lukumi, Hare Krishna, and Wicca.

And that's your Jesus, innit, lol?
(And it might change over time)

 

[Ella S.]

And that's your Jesus, innit, lol?
(And it might change over time)

I wouldn't say it's my Jesus.

It's my deference to the consensus of historical experts on the subject. I'm not sure I'm qualified or care enough about the subject to form my own distinct opinion on it. It's probably the closest to having a lack of an opinion on the figure that one can have without being totally ignorant about the subject.

 

[badger]

I'm not denying it as one possible interpretation amongst many others of the Lords Prayer. There are thousands of sects and religions who each interpret it in the light of what they want it to mean.

The answer that I wrote was not copied from any scholar's work, nor drawn from any past work of mine. It came straight from the keyboard to you. That is not kind of 'going round in circles'.

You mentioned the claims that Jesus was a 'failed revolutionary', but I don't think that a person trying to uphold the laws of his land and people is a revolutionary...... 'social justice campaigner' would fit my findings about him, and as for 'failed', I don't think of anybody as a 'winner' or 'loser', if I did then I would have to throw Pilate in to the 'failed Prefect' file after his recall in shame......

It comes in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which I find difficult to interpret as a political address, even ignoring the context of it. Each to his own.
I'm saying I personally consider the argument that Jesus was not a spiritual teacher is too vacant to be seriously entertained,

Spiritual Teacher........... ?
1. Jesus was not a teacher or the people would have understood him better. He was no teacher.
2. Jesus was not campaigning for spiritual awareness of any kind..... he thought of spirits as REAL, and I don't think that Christians take much notice of spiritualism, ghosts, demons, spirits etc.

Sorry, no rudeness or offence intended. Others may be interested in that line of reasoning @badger but I am not

I know that you are not rude nor offensive.
I'm interested in any lines of reasoning, anything that anybody says to me, and I was replying to the OP's posts and apologising to another.

I will look through the Sermon on the Mount and may start a thread about the speeches of Jesus but it would have to be in the history section, I think.