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

[RJM]

@Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi
Have you read the gospel of John?

 

[yitzak tover]

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the mission of Christ and the meaning of the crucifixion. There are libraries of literature about it. Christ was the last blood sacrifice. By death on the cross he lowered himself to the lowest level of humanity, and then in rising he uplifted the poor and broken hearted, to whom his mission was mainly directed. The crucifixion is full of mystery.

Again: if Jesus had lost consciousness on the cross, he would have suffocated.
Again: Jesus was pierced through with a spear to make sure he was dead.

So again: nice try, but far from evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross, imo
A better grounding in New Testament scripture would seem to be required before drawing these conclusions.

It's just conspiracy theory, fake news imo ...

any god requiring blood of innocent man on cross in order to forgive sins is unworthy of worship

 

[yitzak tover]

He was also beaten-up and flogged and forced to carry his cross, exhausted and losing blood

what kind of god is this who cannot save himself

 

[yitzak tover]

Never understood the point of these arguments. Both sides engage, things get heated and everyone leaves with the exact same opinion they came in with, just a little more angry at the other side. Pointless, especially on an interfaith forum.

Believe as you see fit, but don't cast stones at the other guy or attempt to discredit the text they follow for doing the same. That's not interfaith.

I left church for islam in 2002. I could not worship a god who needs the blood of an innocent man on a cross in order to forgive sins

 

[yitzak tover]

VII – No Eye-Witness of Crucifixion
Three writers of the Gospels state that there was darkness over all the land from the sixth to the ninth hour and that there was an earthquake and the rocks were rent and the veil of the temple was rent in twain. It is a matter of common experience at the time of a severe dust-storm accompanied by an earthquake, people generally hasten to go home and they do not enjoy the luxury of a bloody sight-seeing. Now imagine for a moment, who could stand as an eye-witness to tell the story that Jesus actually died on the cross. The Jews, if, at all, there were any on the spot, must have run away at the sight of the rising storm and the shaking of the earth must have frightened them to turn on their heels and hasten to their homes. As to the disciples they had already fled from the scene of the crucifixion.

“Peter began to curse and to swear saying, l know not this man (Jesus) of whom you speak” (Mark 14:50)

“And they forsook him (Jesus) and fled” (Mark 14:71)

To be brief, there was no one present on the scene who could definitely and certainly say that he saw Jesus ‘giving up the ghost’. This is all mere conjecture and imagination.

so quran right. it wasn't Jesus on cross I knew it

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

I believe that Jesus lived physical life after the crucifixion. Here are some points about this fact.
Life after Crucifixion
Beyond the Euphrates
Traditional Jewish history and Biblical texts divided these Semitic people into twelve tribes. In the time of Jesus, only two of the tribes were in the region Jesus preached, whereas the whereabouts of the remaining ten have always been a bit of a mystery.

The second-century historian Josephus wrote in his book Antiquities of the Jews that the ten tribes were ‘beyond Euphrates’ in his time, east of present-day Iraq and in the Persian empire of the time which extended into India.

It is also notable that early Church history documents the existence of a Gospel in the Hebrew language found in India, which also confirms Israelites in India. St Jerome (c 400 A.D) wrote that the scholar Pantaenus in the second century came across the document in his travels. St Jerome further wrote that the Israelites in his time continue to live in the Persian empire.

The mission of Jesus was to reach out to the Lost Tribes (or ‘Sheep’) of Israel, as stated in Matthew 15:24. It was thus imperative for him to migrate to the east.

The mass of evidence showing that the peoples of Afghanistan, north-west India (particularly Kashmir), and neighboring areas are of Israelite ancestry continues to grow. Their physical features, language, folklore, customs, and festivals attest to their Israelite heritage. Evidence also comes from the names they give to their villages, their monuments, and ancient historical works.

Some pilot genetic studies on peoples in India who to this day call themselves ‘Bene Israel’ or ‘Children of Israel’ confirm their middle eastern origin.

 

[yitzak tover]

I believe that Jesus lived physical life after the crucifixion. Here are some points about this fact.
Life after Crucifixion
Beyond the Euphrates
Traditional Jewish history and Biblical texts divided these Semitic people into twelve tribes. In the time of Jesus, only two of the tribes were in the region Jesus preached, whereas the whereabouts of the remaining ten have always been a bit of a mystery.

The second-century historian Josephus wrote in his book Antiquities of the Jews that the ten tribes were ‘beyond Euphrates’ in his time, east of present-day Iraq and in the Persian empire of the time which extended into India.

It is also notable that early Church history documents the existence of a Gospel in the Hebrew language found in India, which also confirms Israelites in India. St Jerome (c 400 A.D) wrote that the scholar Pantaenus in the second century came across the document in his travels. St Jerome further wrote that the Israelites in his time continue to live in the Persian empire.

The mission of Jesus was to reach out to the Lost Tribes (or ‘Sheep’) of Israel, as stated in Matthew 15:24. It was thus imperative for him to migrate to the east.

The mass of evidence showing that the peoples of Afghanistan, north-west India (particularly Kashmir), and neighboring areas are of Israelite ancestry continues to grow. Their physical features, language, folklore, customs, and festivals attest to their Israelite heritage. Evidence also comes from the names they give to their villages, their monuments, and ancient historical works.

Some pilot genetic studies on peoples in India who to this day call themselves ‘Bene Israel’ or ‘Children of Israel’ confirm their middle eastern origin.

any god needing blood of innocent man on cross in order to forgive sins is unworthy of worship I left church for islam 2002

 

[RJM]

any god needing blood of innocent man on cross in order to forgive sins is unworthy of worship I left church for islam 2002

Why do you keep saying the same thing? Did you read this explanation:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20056/page-4#post-356659

Do you understand the concept of sacrifice is not blood upon the altar, but to give of yourself a valuable animal or possession to God?

When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, it wasn't about the killing or the blood; it was about Abraham being willing to give his most precious possession to God -- his own most precious and beloved son -- with no expectation of anything in return, but just to affirm his total trust in God.

True sacrifice is about giving to God what is valuable to us, with no expectation of return, as a mark of complete trust and faith in God. It's not about the blood on the altar, but it became so. The concept of sacrifice became corrupted and meaningless.

That is why Christ overthrew the tables of the money lenders in the temple, and eventually gave himself up willingly as the last and final blood sacrifice, to end forever the corrupted practice of blood sacrifice, to restore the meaning of the true sacrifice of Abraham -- of Abraham's willingness to give to God even the life of his own most precious son.

So, you see, it's a bit more complicated than your plain statements indicate, and of course the life and crucifixion of Christ hold many other messages and mysteries beyond this one alone.

However you are not expected to understand this

Do you have a response?

 

[yitzak tover]

Why do you keep saying the same thing? Did you read this explanation:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20056/page-4#post-356659
Do you have a response?

Jesus cried out on cross ' Allaha Allaha why have thou forsaken me ' how is that willingly ?

 

[RJM]

Jesus cried out on cross ' Allaha Allaha why have thou forsaken me ' how is that willingly ?

Well, you need to have a reasonable knowledge of Christian scripture to understand that -- instead of pulling out isolated quotes that seem to support your theory, and ignoring the ones that do not, or labelling them false. The word he used was 'Eloih' not Allah, by the way. Have you read the gospel of John?

 

[yitzak tover]

Well, you need to have a reasonable knowledge of Christian scripture to understand that -- instead of pulling out isolated quotes that seem to support your theory, and ignoring the ones that do not, or labelling them false. The word he used was 'Eloih' not Allah, by the way. Have you read the gospel of John?

yes. I have. moses used the term eloh for the one god in Hebrew. Jesus used the term Allaha in Aramaic. Muhammad used the term allah in arabic. they are all 3 semitic languages with the same roots

 

[RJM]

yes. I have

In which case you appear to be deliberately ignoring the passages that don't suit your drift. I thought it was just plain ignorance

moses used the term eloh for the one god in Hebrew. Jesus used the term Allaha in Aramaic. Muhammad used the term allah in arabic.

So why earlier did you say Yaweh orders his followers to smash babies on rocks. Is Eloih a different God to Yaweh?

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/7629/page-14#post-356102

only quran says to avoid harming women in children. elderly in battle. but bible orders you to ' bash the heads of the babies of your enemies against the rocks ' I left church for islam in 2002

nope yahweh clearly orders followers to bash the heads of babies against the rocks i left church for islam in 2002

 

[Cino]

@RJM @yitzak tover - this is one of the more intriguing passages, considering it is also the opening words of psalm 22. Was Jesus (or the author of the Gospel) quoting David here? Or was Jesus saying a prayer incorporating that psalm?

What are your thoughts - is this gospel passage intended to underline the Messianic status of Jesus? Or is it an expression of anguish and hopelessness?

I have no preferred interpretation, but I sometimes wonder why the Psalm is so seldom mentioned when this Gospel passage is being discussed.

 

[RJM]

@RJM @yitzak tover - this is one of the more intriguing passages, considering it is also the opening words of psalm 22. Was Jesus (or the author of the Gospel) quoting David here? Or was Jesus saying a prayer incorporating that psalm?

What are your thoughts - is this gospel passage intended to underline the Messianic status of Jesus? Or is it an expression of anguish and hopelessness?

I have no preferred interpretation, but I sometimes wonder why the Psalm is so seldom mentioned when this Gospel passage is being discussed.

I know. It's cause for thought and meditation, like several other mysteries of the crucifixion.

I've always taken it to show that Jesus is taking all the weight of human sin and suffering and sorrow upon himself -- that a person in a torture cell can turn to Jesus -- someone or dying of a painful disease, or in bad trouble and sorrow in their life -- knows Jesus shares their physical and mental human pain -- including the feeling of despair and abandonment by God (but which in fact is not the case).

To Jesus on the cross, it was the worst of all his suffering

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

 

[badger]

A crucified man had to keep pulling himself up in order to breathe. It was not possible to lose consciousness. That was the cruelty of crucifixion. If Jesus had lost consciousness on the cross he would have died by asphixiation. To say nothing of being thrust through with a spear.

In any event, he would have been in no condition to be walking around and talking after 3 days, imo

I have always wondered whether the spear thrust might have saved his life.
The lungs could slowly fill with fluid during a crucifixion and to Lance the lung low down could drain it.
Maybe Pilate instructed Joseph of A to get him down and away...to revive him. A person could take three days to die on a cross, not a few hours, and historian Josephus wrote that he saved a friend from crucifixion on another occasion....so this could have happened.

 

[RJM]

I have always wondered whether the spear thrust might have saved his life.
The lungs could slowly fill with fluid during a crucifixion and to Lance the lung low down could drain it.
Maybe Pilate instructed Joseph of A to get him down and away...to revive him. A person could take three days to die on a cross, not a few hours, and historian Josephus wrote that he saved a friend from crucifixion on another occasion....so this could have happened.

Interesting indeed.

It means Jesus lied to his followers, either before, or after the crucifixion?

EDIT
It always comes around to what parts of the New Testament we choose to support a conspiracy theory and which parts to reject that do not support it?

 

[RJM]

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

 

[yitzak tover]

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

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

 

[badger]

Interesting indeed.

It means Jesus lied to his followers, either before, or after the crucifixion?

EDIT
It always comes around to what parts of the New Testament we choose to support a conspiracy theory and which parts to reject that do not support it?

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?

 

[RJM]

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

I tend to think you are repeating yourself, ignoring the reasoned responses to your robotic one liners, and ignoring warnings. I tend to think you're done here.