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

[badger]

I tend to believe a loving god would never need the blood of an innocent man on a cross in order to forgive sins. that is the opposite of a loving god

Fair comment.
There are two other possibilities, both with Bible support for them.

1. Jesus was loved by the people, they welcomed him to Jerusalem, he caused havoc in and picketed the Temple Courts. He got arrested for it. Was convicted and sentenced. But the people demanded his release and the worried Roman Prefect found an excuse to release him. His close friends did see him again on his way to Sidon and exile. The people called him Jesus son of the Father, on Eastern Aramaic that would be Yeshua BarAbbas as shown in early bibles .

Or. 2. Joseph of A was allowed to get him off the cross alive and away.

 

[badger]

@RJM ..... Are we allowed to question Christian Creed on the Christianity forum?
You know I'm knew here.

 

[RJM]

@RJM ..... Are we allowed to question Christian Creed on the Christianity forum?
You know I'm knew here.

Absolutely. Fire away. Open house. It's about discussion and reciprocity. It's the blooming rudeness and proselytising of a few that spoil it for everyone else.

 

[RJM]

@badger I'm looking forward to coming back here tomorrow. It's been a long day around here, so I'm going to log off for the rest of the night. You are a very welcome addition to the mix, imo

 

[Namaste Jesus]

he Psalm 22 theory was new to me, until @Namaste Jesus and now you suggested it

The first I heard the Psalm 22 reference was from a Pastor a number of years back, who taught that all passages in the Bible have a second or 3rd witness. His inference to Psalm 22, one example, using the Strong's Concordance as a guide.

Some years later I mentioned this to Aussie, who told me that his father had taught him the same thing and that this was passed down in his family for many generations, dating back to his German ancestry.

Now to me, this makes a lot of sense. Jesus was a teacher after all and ofttimes referenced scripture- "Have ye not read?"

So hearing that Jesus was reciting Psalm 22 while dying on the cross was an a-ha moment for me. Like Jesus saying, Look, this is happening! Just as written 1000 years prior!

 

[badger]

Absolutely. Fire away. Open house. It's about discussion and reciprocity. It's the blooming rudeness and proselytising of a few that spoil it for everyone else.

Thank you for the welcome attitudes here. I've found Brians' guidance posts and am looking forward to the chance of becoming a regular member.
Thanks again.....badger

 

[RJM]

Imo the site belongs to the people who participate and post to keep it going. There's not much admin work. Am not myself theological.

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

The Kashmir Tomb
The burial place of Jesus in Kashmir is known to the locals as Rauzabal, meaning the Honored Tomb.

It is known as the tomb of Yuz Asaf, which may be of Buddhist derivation (see link) or possibly from Yusu or Yehoshua (Jesus) the Gatherer.

Local tradition states that the entombed was a prophet of Ahle-Kitab, or People of the Book, and his name was Isa – the Quranic name for Jesus.

The prophet Yuz Asaf came to Kashmir from the West (Holy Land) in the reign of Raja Gopdatta (c 1st century A.D) according to the ancient official documents held by the current custodian of the tomb.

Some of the most extensive research on the tomb has been conducted by the now-retired famous historian and former Head of Archaeology for the State of Kashmir, Professor Fida Hassnain.

The tomb is Jewish, as attested by the direction the grave is lying. Next to the grave is a footprint engraved in stone, an artistic rendition of the wounds of crucifixion.

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

The Testimony Hindu and Buddhist Texts
First-century A.D Northern India was a vast center of not only Hinduism but also Buddhism. The Israelite peoples whom Jesus ministered to in these areas were in a minority practicing Judaism, but it is likely many adopted the indigenous faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism also.

It is possible to trace Jesus’s footprints in these lands from some of these texts.

The ancient books of Hindus are called Puranas. One book, Bhavishya Maha Purana (written in Sanskrit) contains an account of a king of India, Salivahana meeting “Isa-Masiha” (Jesus the Messiah)- a religious personage of fair complexion who was a foreigner.

Buddhist texts contain a prophecy of future Buddha, a bodhisattva, named ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ a Pali phrase which literally means “fair-complexioned”, or “white traveler”. The etymological resemblance of the word “Metteyya” to “Messiah” is established and one meaning of the word “Messiah” is the traveler.

As the sun of Christianity did rise in India with Jesus’ personal advent in the area, many teachings of Jesus became interwoven with Gautama Buddha’s teachings. Even certain parables as recorded in the New Testament became attributed to Buddha, such as the parable of the sower which is found in Buddhist texts.

It has been proposed that the word Yuz Asaf, the name of the person entombed in Kashmir, is derived from Buddha Asaf, as Jesus would have been included in the Buddhist pantheon of saints. The term would thus mean a Buddha who rallied people or gathered the flock of the true faith.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Having been exposed to Hindu culture through my wife's ancestry, I am somewhat familiar with these stories. I think it entirely possible God would manifest himself to other cultures in attune with their own understanding after the crucifixion.

Acts 2:6 Comes to mind, though not directly connected.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Now, whether or not, Yuz Asaf is he I cannot say. I think available information is too speculative to draw a definitive conclusion. Regardless, to me this is no indication the crucifixion never happened or that Jesus did not for all intent and purpose die on the cross. Just one more chapter in the story.

 

[RJM]

Yes. That's about it.
My thoughts...... Although I can see many valuable reports and accounts in all of the gospels, I focus upon the gospel of Mark .....that's just the way that I see it all. I don't think that Matthew was there, Luke clearly didn't claim to have been, and the author/s of John didn't know much about John BarZebedee the boatman ... Didn't know about those amazing experiences that he had.
By focusing upon G-Mark I don't pick up on any lies from Jesus .

What do you think?

I don't have the expert knowledge to debate the fine issues of gospel comparison. I have to just revert back to taking the overall message of the NT as a whole, that pivots on Jesus's death on the cross, and the overall opinion of scholars and historians that this is the case.

 

[badger]

I don't have the expert knowledge to debate the fine issues of gospel comparison.

Apart from an interest in OT laws, nearly all that I have focused upon in the NT are the gospels.

I have to just revert back to taking the overall message of the NT as a whole, that pivots on Jesus's death on the cross, and the overall opinion of scholars and historians that this is the case.

Yes! That is exactly what the bulk of the New Testament focuses upon....... Jesus's death and resurrection.....
Paul refers to not much else and did not refer to a single thing that Jesus said or did during his entire campaign, apart from those last hours.
After the Gospel of John, some brief verses in Acts and the letters of Cephas, there is nothing to throw any light upon Jesus or his followers actions during the mission.

Scholars and Historians. Quite often I have been directed to the wisdom of this or that 'Scholar', and the very word is like a 'truth-pill' to some people as if once mentioned scholar's words are anchored truth. Many debaters need scholars to follow. And so debaters can wave scholar's flags at each other to debunk or promote ideas!
If the best known 50 Historical Jesus scholars could all be locked up in a room and told that they could not leave it until all had agreed to the Jesus story then we would be free of them for ever. Individual Investigation may be more productive for all, imo.

 

[Cino]

If the best known 50 Historical Jesus scholars could all be locked up in a room and told that they could not leave it until all had agreed to the Jesus story then we would be free of them for ever. Individual Investigation may be more productive for all, imo.

How is individual investigation different from and superior to scholarship, using your metric of "number of dissenting opinions"? I would think that this would add to the number of opinions, not reduce them?

Is a lack in formal training really an advantage? Is a freedom from having to defend one's ideas against other experts in the field really an advantage?

I might be missing your point completely...

 

[RJM]

the best known 50 Historical Jesus scholars could all be locked up in a room and told that they could not leave it until all had agreed to the Jesus story then we would be free of them forever

But I believe the large majority would agree that Jesus did die on the cross? Bart Ehrman is quoted around here quite often.

Again -- why is it important to show Jesus did not die on the cross? Or rather -- why should the gospels need to support the idea, when overall they so clearly do not?

Almost any conclusion can be drawn from the gospels to support almost any theory about Jesus, by 'reading between the lines' but it has to involve rejecting large chunks that do not fit the theory

And the question is why? The main driver of the gospels and the New Testament is Christ's death on the cross. The majority of independent historians and experts support Jesus's death on the cross --the ones who accept that Jesus existed, of course, but which again is the large majority

The only reason to consider the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross is one single line from the Quran -- and the Quran is itself quite thin on information about Jesus apart from a few episodes where he seems to be included for the single purpose of affirming that he acts only with Allah's permission, and often mirrored in NT apocrypha whose validity scholars dispute

All Christian groups have always supported Jesus's death on the cross, including non-trinitarians and Aryans and Unitarians, etc

The resurrection of Christ is not accepted by Islam, and so a complicated theory needs to be constructed to avoid Jesus's death on the cross.

That's just my own opinion

(edited ... sorry)

 

[Cino]

Well Bart Ehrman is quoted around here quite often. Again -- why is it important to show Jesus did not die on the cross? Or rather -- why should the gospels need to support the idea, when overall they so clearly do not?

Depends on how the Gospels are viewed, I think. If they are treated as historical documents, then a different set of issues become evident than from a theological reading. They are difficult to harmonize under any premise. This is where scholarship really comes into its own, with many smart and dedicated people working hard to understand what the discrepancies mean, and testing their understanding against that of other similarly dedicated and well-trained people.

I'm not saying anyone has to be a scholar in order to read and interpret scripture, or that by invoking the authority of a scholar, one's own argument gains credibility. Referring to scholars is a means of showing how one came to the conclusions one is presenting.

 

[RJM]

By focusing upon G-Mark I don't pick up on any lies from Jesus .

What do you think?

I'll read it again soon.

I've been reading John, from which several of the 'proofs' proposed in this thread seem to come. Sometimes there is a 'proof' derived from one line, and then a counter proof ignored in the very next line. The blood and water proof (VI) is followed immediately by the no eye witness proof (VII) -- where the same gospel writer who speaks about the spear thrust, assures us in the next line that he witnessed it himself, etc
John 19: 34-35

So the issue is not whether a gospel account is authentic or valid but that if a person is going to use it to support a theory, it's not convincing to reject the other parts that don't fit the theory, lol

 

[badger]

How is individual investigation different from and superior to scholarship, using your metric of "number of dissenting opinions"? I would think that this would add to the number of opinions, not reduce them?

Is a lack in formal training really an advantage? Is a freedom from having to defend one's ideas against other experts in the field really an advantage?

I might be missing your point completely...

Indeed you might......... be missing my point.
Would you like to tell me how you have decided about the gospel accounts, if at all?
Was it at school, or in a church, or by studying the scholars, or through a degree course, etc etc?
How have you found your truth about the gospels?

 

[badger]

But I believe the large majority would agree that Jesus did die on the cross? Bart Ehrman is quoted around here quite often.

Yes........ billions of people believe that Jesus died on the cross.
Bart..... quoted a lot? OK....... I'm forewarned .......

Again -- why is it important to show Jesus did not die on the cross? Or rather -- why should the gospels need to support the idea, when overall they so clearly do not?

It's not important, not for a Deist. It's just that an investigation from nothing can lead to questions about what really happened.
Sometimes these journeys of investigation can end in life-changing decisions, Geza Vermes was a priest until his studies left him without ba faith to follow.
The gospel of Mark leaves me with doubts about what happened in that last day. Was it Jesus son of Man or Jesus son of the Father that Pilate pardoned/released? This is covered in the gospels but without clarity, one of the names is hidden in full sight by being written in Eastern Aramaic, and his first name was eliminated after the earliest gospels. etc etc....
If you have Christian Faith then I can acknowledge it, I only offer ideas for other historians to consider.

Almost any conclusion can be drawn from the gospels to support almost any theory about Jesus, by 'reading between the lines' but it has to involve rejecting large chunks that do not fit the theory

Yes..... if all the gospels are accepted........... I find that G-John is useful, has much info not found in the others, the author/s certainly had a very useful bundle of documents to draw from, but they didn't know where to put anything, they left out demon castings etc as too lowly (I suspect) and entered 'back to life' miracles as (maybe) more fitting for their God. So I trust much of the info in G-John, but not miracles or a timeline unsupported elsewhere.
Immediately I have one less gospel to worry about, much.

Many Christians do seem to focus very closely on the Gospel of John, which can leave huge gaps in the accounts from the others. I often ask 'what did Jesus and disciples do in Jerusalem/Temple on that last Palm Sunday. It's there to read and take in but few can ever tell me a correct answer...... so don't pick up on the value of that information..... looking somewhere else, I guess.

 

[badger]

I'll read it again soon.

I've been reading John, from which several of the 'proofs' proposed in this thread seem to come. Sometimes there is a 'proof' derived from one line, and then a counter proof ignored in the very next line. The blood and water proof (VI) is followed immediately by the no eye witness proof (VII) -- where the same gospel writer who speaks about the spear thrust, assures us in the next line that he witnessed it himself, etc
John 19: 34-35

So the issue is not whether a gospel account is authentic or valid but that if a person is going to use it to support a theory, it's not convincing to reject the other parts that don't fit the theory, lol

OK........ let me pick one part of that post for consideration......
the same gospel writer who speaks about the spear thrust, assures us in the next line that he witnessed it himself, etc
John......

So I looked in to what I could find about the author of G-John.
I don't believe he was the boatman John BarZebedee, I don't think disciple John was there, either.
Why? Several reasons but let me give you one:-
One of the disciple John's most amazing and memorable experiences for all time, was standing with James and Cephas on that Northern mount, watching Jesus lit up in dazzling brightness and standing with Elijah and (forget) in the most brilliant transfiguration. Cephas wrote about this many years later, explaining in so many words that if he had ever had any doubts then the memory of those moments fixed his faith strong. Oh yes.
John? In the who of that gospel he never thought to make mention of it, probably didn't know about it.

It goes on......... Disciple John was a hardened young tough, confrontational when necessary and a fighter if need be. Compare the boatman with the author writing 70-80 years later on...... have you ever researched life expectancy in early 1st century Galilee? etc etc

 

[RJM]

OK........ let me pick one part of that post for consideration......
the same gospel writer who speaks about the spear thrust, assures us in the next line that he witnessed it himself, etc
John......

The point is that, whoever the writer of the gospel was, the gospel of John is first used to support the blood and water 'proof'? And the following proof insists there was no eye-witness? But in fact the writer of the same gospel in the same passage in the very next line states that he was eyewitness to the spearing of Jesus?

Whether one believes the account or not, the gospel of John is used for one proof, then ignored for the next proof.

It doesn't have to be John the apostle.

So this point at this stage is not about the authenticity of validity or authorship of John's gospel, but the inconsistency of using one verse to support the theory, while ignoring that the next verse directly contradicts the theory?

So I looked in to what I could find about the author of G-John.
I don't believe he was the boatman John BarZebedee, I don't think disciple John was there, either.

It's irrelevant whether the writer was John the apostle. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't affect the argument. It's just a name. It's accepted by most nowadays that the Apostle John was not the author of the gospel of John. Imo

(edited ...)