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

[RJM]

I want humble request to those who wish to read the comparative religions, please read this book. Here is a free download.
https://www.alislam.org/book/revelation-rationality-knowledge-truth/

But why should anyone wish to invest time reading more about this, when so far all the 'proofs' in this thread have been debunked, and there has been no response to these rebuttals, except to post more unconvincing tracts?

 

[RJM]

Did Christ Die on the Cross?
A group of German scientists had been making investigations regarding the shroud of Jesus for the last eight years. The results of their research have been recently made available to the press.

The two-thousand-year-old winding sheet of Christ has been found in the Italian town of Turin. It bears the impressions of Christ’s body. The scientists have informed the Pope about the discovery. But the Pope is silent. The discovery brings to light a vital secret of the religious history of the Catholic Church.

With the help of the art of photography, scientists have tried to prove that the resurrection, which was regarded as a miracle by the people for the past two thousand years, was in fact a natural physiological phenomenon. They have conclusively proved that Christ did not die on the cross. The issue of Christ’s shroud has been under discussion for the last one thousand years. This cloth was sent to Constantinople in 438 A.D. by Queen Endoxi. It was originally found near the catacombs.

It remained in Constantinople for seven hundred years. Finally, De La Roche took it away with him after an attack on Constantinople. When the fire broke out, the cloth was in a silver box. As a result of the melting of silver, it became slightly indistinct. But the marks of Christ’s body were still visible. The people of France earned a large sum of money by displaying this cloth. From France, it was taken to Turin, and there it was taken out for exhibition after every thirty-three years. In 1898 A.D. an Italian advocate looked at the negative in the light of the sun, he was astounded to find that it bore an exact likeness to Christ.

When the negative was printed, it showed the face of the man ( Jesus) whom no one had seen for the past 1900 years. In 1931 A.D., when the cloth was again displayed, Guiseppe Enrie, a photographer, took another photograph of the cloth with the help of bulbs operating at 6,000 and 20,000 volts supply in the presence of an important dignitary of the Church. This photograph brought to light a sensational fact and demonstrated for the second time what Pia had already shown. The picture bears an exact likeness to the face and body contours which the Church, for the last two thousand years, has been describing as those of Christ.

When a man looks at the photograph which has been reproduced in the book Das Linnen Kurt Berna Stuttgart by Hanas Naber Verlage, he can easily understand the reaction of the Church. Pope Pius IX remarked: “This picture has not been made by any human hand.” The scientists declare that the cloth and history both confirm that it is the picture of Christ. The manufacture and texture of the cloth show that it is the sort of cloth that was found at Pompeii. The double marks on the cloth show that one half of the cloth was wrapped around the body of Christ, and the other half was used to cover his head. The ointment applied to Christ’s body, together with the heat of the body reproduced the impressions of Christ’s body on the cloth.

The fresh blood of Christ as absorbed into the cloth also left marks on it. The photograph clearly shows the marks made by the crown of thorns on the base of the head and the forehead of Christ, the swollen right cheek of Christ, the deep spear mark on the right side, the bloodstains due to blood flowing from the wounds caused by nails, and the marks on the back caused by friction with the cross. But the most astonishing fact is that in the negative, the two closed eyes of Christ seem as if they are open.

The photograph also reveals that the nails were not struck on the palms but on the hard joints of the wrists. Another thing that becomes clear is that the spear did not touch the heart of Christ. The Bible says that Christ gave up the ghost, but the scientists insist that the heart had not stopped functioning. It is also observed that if Christ had remained lifeless on the cross for an hour, the blood would have coagulated and become dry, as such no blood marks would have been left on the cloth.

But the fact that the blood was absorbed in the cloth shows that Christ was alive when he was taken down from the cross. I may add here that this sensational discovery of the German scientists merely confirms what was stated by Holy Quran fourteen centuries ago. The Holy Quran declares that Jesus had not died on the cross:

This article appears to be several decades out-of-date, and very inaccurate, to say the least:

The two-thousand-year-old winding sheet of Christ has been found in the Italian town of Turin. It bears the impressions of Christ’s body. The scientists have informed the Pope about the discovery. But the Pope is silent. The discovery brings to light a vital secret of the religious history of the Catholic Church.

This is rubbish

Turin shroud.
The shroud first surfaced in medieval France.
The earliest historical records of the Shroud of Turin place it in Lirey, France during the 1350s. A French knight named Geoffroi de Charny allegedly presented it to the dean of the church in Lirey as Jesus’ authentic burial shroud. There’s no record of how de Charny got his hands on the shroud, nor where it was during the 1300 intervening years since Christ’s burial outside Jerusalem.

The pope soon declared it was not an actual historic relic.
After the church of Lirey put the shroud on display, the church began to draw a lot of pilgrims, and also a lot of money. However, many prominent members of the church remained skeptical of its authenticity.

Around 1389, Pierre d’Arcis—the bishop of Troyes, France—sent a report to Pope Clement VII claiming an artist had confessed to forging the shroud. Furthermore, d’Arcis claimed the dean of the Lirey church knew it was a fake and had used it to raise money anyway. In response, the pope declared the shroud wasn’t the true burial cloth of Christ. Still, he said the Lirey church could continue to display it if it acknowledged the cloth was a man-made religious “icon,” not a historic “relic.” Today, Pope Francis still describes it as an “icon.”

There are too many other inaccuracies in the article to merit detailed rebuttal.

For more recent info about the Turin shroud, please visit their website:
https://www.shroud.com/

Jesus was in all probability not wrapped from head to foot in a single piece of linen. The Jewish custom was to wrap the body up to the shoulders, and to wrap the head separately. This is mentioned in the gospel of John, which same gospel has also been used liberally in this thread to provide these various 'proofs' that Jesus did not die on the cross

Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself
(John 20:6-7)
John 20 kjv Read full chapter

Preparation of the Body
The first ritual that remains to this day is that every person who has died must be prepared for burial. Today, that typically means washing and possibly embalming. In Jesus’ day, the body was washed and anointed with expensive perfumes, like nard, myrrh, and aloes. Then, the body was wrapped in a shroud, the face covered with a special cloth, and the hands and feet tied with strips of cloth. You can see this practice illustrated in the Bible for Jesus (John 19:38-42; Luke 24: 10-12), Lazarus (John 11:43-44), and Tabitha (Acts 9:37).
https://www.funeralbasics.org/7-funeral-rituals-from-jesus-time-that-still-exist-today/

The same is said about the body of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead:
When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
John 11: 43-44

The Turin shroud is largely regarded as a fake. Even if real, it would not demonstrate that Jesus did not die on the cross, imo

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

please see this link too.

https://www.reviewofreligions.org/2...f-the-shroud-exhibition-on-all-walks-of-life/

https://www.rabwah.net/shroud-of-turin-replica-displayed-at-ahmadiyya-muslim-convention/

My main article refers to the Holy Bible. This is an additional point for you. thanks

 

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

If you have some time, please watch this video of BBC. But, my main focus is on the biblical points.

 

[badger]

I think this avoids the issue. My comments are about the spear thrust used in relation to the thread title to 'prove' Jesus survived -- when in fact it proves he did not, or at least greatly reduces the chance that he survived.

I don't think so. A spear thrust which produces blood and fluids........ a piercing of the lung, I think.
This wasn't intended as the killer blow or there was much better targets.
It may have been a killer stab, or a jab to check for life, or a lancing to clear a lung.

The 'proof' does the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Regardless of whether one accepts the gospel of John -- the gospel of John is used here as authorative.

If John is used here as authoritive ............ in this Christian section? But if so I would be amazed...... did the author just stand there, feet away, watching all of this? Did the author see exactly how deep that stab was? While we are at it, did the author take a pulse or whatever?
Authorative?

The author of G-John didn't even know about disciple John, let alone what Jesus did.

Nothing to do with faith. I rest my case

I have known about the Christian Faith all my life, was one, as a child (!) was even confirmed in faith by the Bishop of Dunwich (!)...... but when folks tell me that they have any kind of Christian Certitude I can do nothing more than nod, mumble 'of courses' etc..... and try to comment about the weather.

 

[RJM]

@badger
I am responding to the thread topic. The gospel of John and spear thrust are used by the author of the thread. I am just responding to his points -- and now to yours as well.

So again I ask: If the intention was to bring Jesus down alive, would it be a good idea to pierce the lung of a crucified and exhausted man? It would be a serious life threatening wound requiring expert medical attention and risk of infection -- on top of his other very serious injuries. The draining of the lung would be better performed by a proper doctor after Jesus was down from the cross? Surely?

Also it would cause profuse and visible bleeding. So ...

 

[badger]

Well, I grew up with the Gospel stories, as you do, Christmas, Easter, at home, in school, some religious education, contact with a Christian youth group as an adolescent. My family moved across three continents before I was twenty, we lived in Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist majority countries. I have Jewish in-laws and cousins (from a different family line). I read lots of different religious scriptures and commentaries in my late teens and early twenties, cover-to-cover, and discussed the puzzling parts with people who were into it, learned and self-taught. I tend to respect the depth and breadth of a good scholar. I don't have many original thoughts, there are footsteps in the snow wherever I go, figuratively speaking. I like it when someone can tell me the story of what led people down this or that track. It gives me more options, not having to expend my life time mapping from scratch.

Truths I have discovered about the gospels: That they are truly old texts, with all that entails, fascinating things to learn about them, interesting concepts to explore, in the texts, in the commentaries, in the traditions. And that when I read them as mystical texts, sometimes I get a moment of recognition across the millennia, like a familiar smell, like a nod of acknowledgement. This tends to happen not with the miracle accounts or the resurrection, but with the parables and teachings about the kingdom, such as Luke 20-21, or the parable of the treasure in the field or the pearl, or the yeast and the dough. I find it amazing that other sages across history found very similar words - this tells me that they are onto something deeply human, something we all share, which lies beyond any creed or world view or belief, or birth place or epoch. So, to me, the Gospels, like all religious scriptures, contain these treasures which I sometimes come across. I do not claim that what rings true to me must be some kind of absolute Truth applicable to every human being.

Still, scholars are worth listening to, in my opinion. Not to follow them blindly, but to draw on the knowledge they preserve, pass on, and add to.

Thankyou for that..........
Your last sentence...... scholars are worth listening to........
Today, a typical and easy truth-pill to deliver before offering any information is to pop a delivery-word ahead of the content which is aimed at readers/listeners.

'Scientists have found/discovered etc' is a delightful one.
'Scholars agree that...' is another.
There are so many more of these introductions, used to make claims more credible.

I admit it! I used one this very week! I mentioned to three acquaintances that a good friend who is a dog trainer is still nervous about small dogs. One of them chuckled at the irony of that, and mumbled something about 'can't be any kind of trainer'. I then added some more (accurate and true) info..... 'Oh M-----? He mostly trains explosives, drugs, currency sniffer dogs for the prison service, media companies and stuff'....... and immediately everybody was mumbling 'oh wells' and 'ahs' and 'wows'.

That's how a lot of people react to such intros....... And so if you can tell me that a peer-reviewed scholar has claimed that,say, aston-martin cars can corner better than, say, citroens, all a debater has to do is find a peer-reviewed scholar who thinks that citroens corner best..... It's called flag waving. Any scholar-flag that anybody can wave can be answered by waving a scholar-flag which refutes the other....

So let's all review historians', researchers', scientists' works as necessary, but let us never fall in to the trap of believing that a person is right because they were a professor, a senior policeman, a etc. etc. Ad Hominem and other such claims don't work alone.

 

[Cino]

Thankyou for that..........
Your last sentence...... scholars are worth listening to........

That was only my second to last sentence.

Scholars, for all their human faults, and the faults of those who like to hide hehind their authority - "say what you like about the tenets of scholarship, @badger, at least it's about reading carefully", to misquote Walter from the movie, the Big Lebowski.

 

[RJM]

If John is used here as authoritive ............ in this Christian section?

It is the author of the thread who uses John as authoritive. I am not claiming John is authoritive. I am responding to the post. Nor does its inclusion in the Christian section preclude debate about the authority of John's gospel.

did the author just stand there, feet away, watching all of this?

That is what he says, in the gospel of John -- which the thread OP claims is authoritive.

Did the author see exactly how deep that stab was? While we are at it, did the author take a pulse or whatever?

He does not say.

The author of G-John didn't even know about disciple John,

So? How is it relevant here?

let alone what Jesus did.

Again, the thread OP is using the blood-and-water crucifixion account from the gospel of John 19:34 as 'proof' that Jesus did not die on the cross.

VI – Coming Out of Blood and Water
“Then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the first and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water”. (John 19: 3-234)

The soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus for they took him for a dead man while actually, he was in a state of swoon, or just to silence the angry Jews he was declared be a ‘dead’ man. But one of the soldiers incidentally “pierced his side and forthwith there came out blood and water”, which is a surer sign of life for blood and water do not come out of a dead man’s body. There is much food for thought here for those who care to ponder over it.

This is disputed in the response. And then the next 'proof' is based on there being no eye-witness:

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.

But in fact in the next line from the same blood-and-water passage, the writer claims to have been an eye-witness John 19:35. So the point isn't whether John is authoritive, or what anyone believes, but in debunking the contradictory nature of the 'proofs' presented in this thread, imo

 

[badger]

@badger
I am responding to the thread topic. The gospel of John and spear thrust are used by the author of the thread. I am just responding to his points -- and now to yours as well.

So again I ask: If the intention was to bring Jesus down alive, would it be a good idea to pierce the lung of a crucified and exhausted man? It would be a serious life threatening wound requiring expert medical attention and risk of infection -- on top of his other very serious injuries. The draining of the lung would be better performed by a proper doctor after Jesus was down from the cross? Surely?

Also it would cause profuse and visible bleeding. So ...

I watched a television program about a hospital's 'Accident and Emergency Ward' a few years back. This kid had been doing tricks on his BMX bike and fallen, and had bashed his side upon a foot rest. Not good..... he was rushed to hospital and tests showed that his lung had filled with blood/fluid. A young doctor didn't wait around, but took an instrument and pushed it in to the lung, low down, and masses of blood and fluid poured out..... and this saved the kid.

I never forget that scene.,

 

[RJM]

I watched a television program about a hospital's 'Accident and Emergency Ward' a few years back. This kid had been doing tricks on his BMX bike and fallen, and had bashed his side upon a foot rest. Not good..... he was rushed to hospital and tests showed that his lung had filled with blood/fluid. A young doctor didn't wait around, but took an instrument and pushed it in to the lung, low down, and masses of blood and fluid poured out..... and this saved the kid.

I never forget that scene.,

If the fluid in the lungs was going to kill him in such a very short time that it was necessary to pierce his lung with a spear in order to get him down alive -- no time even to get him to a doctor -- it would explain why they wouldn't need to break his legs and the crucifixion so comparitively short?

Otherwise would make no sense to add a punctured lung and profusely bleeding spear wound to Jesus's injuries, if the intention was to save his life?

So we can spike proof V?
Lol ...

Now, I will wait for your replies and comments.
V – Duration of Crucifixion
The duration of crucifixion or the period of time for which Jesus remained on the Cross was not long enough to warrant his death on the Cross. Criminals generally took several days to die a lingering death on the cross on account of the loss of blood from the wounds on hands and feet, the physical pain, and the pangs of hunger and thirst. The minimum time of death on the cross ranged between 24 and 28 hours, but in some cases, it took several days to die on the cross. In such cases, it became necessary to break the legs of the criminals so that death may be hastened and consummated.

Let us now probe into the matter of Jesus’s crucifixion. The New Testament tells us that Jesus remained on the cross for a few hours only. The actual duration of time Jesus remained on the cross was not more than three or four hours. Jesus Christ who was in the prime of his youth (33 years) and enjoyed excellent health, could not be expected to have died within so short a time. Especially as his legs were not broken as was done in the case of the two robbers crucified with him on the same day.

It may not be out of place here to note that, according to the Roman calendar the day began with the rising of the sun and ended with its setting. The same custom is in vogue even to this day in Arab countries. According to John (19:14), it was about the sixth hour of the day (Friday) that Pilate spoke last to the Jews vis-a-vis Jesus' crucifixion and handed him over to them.

“And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, LAMA SABACHTHANI, My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33, 34)

This shows that Jesus retained his consciousness up to the ninth hour of the day and then he fell into a swoon, which the New Testament writers call “giving up the ghost”.

None of the writers were present on the spot to stand as an eye-witness. The ‘swoon’ was taken to be ‘death’ and ‘death on the cross’ means an accursed death. Do we not read in the Bible,

“for he that is hanged is accursed of God”. (Deut. 21: 23).

What an audacity on the part of Christians to call a true prophet of God and accursed of God.

 

[RJM]

It's honestly easier to conclude Jesus died on the cross*, and just move on, imo

*at least as far as the NT would have it, tho other writings obviously differ ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

If the fluid in the lungs was going to kill him in such a very short time that it was necessary to pierce his lung with a spear in order to get him down alive -- no time even to get him to a doctor -- it would explain why they wouldn't need to break his legs and the crucifixion so comparitively short?

Otherwise would make no sense to add a punctured lung and profusely bleeding spear wound to Jesus's injuries, if the intention was to save his life?

This whole conversation makes no sense, does it?
You theorise about how Jesus must have died because "this and that" .. while on the other hand you claim that
G-d can do anything He likes.

You are therefore claiming that "G-d" wanted to die on a cross, as it was his plan all along.

 

[RJM]

You are therefore claiming that "G-d" wanted to die on a cross, as it was his plan all along.

Shows a deliberate misunderstanding of Christian belief by one who pretends to know what it's about. Same ole' ...

Or perhaps God sent Jesus to sort out a few minor issues with the Jewish religion, but instead Jesus did stuff that nearly got him killed, unless God had whisked him back up to heaven just in time to get him safe, and ended up by mistake causing a whole false religion that has lasted 2000 yrs, still going strong -- whoops!

Sure ... that makes a lot more sense

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa
Do you deny my above take on Islamic belief?

I could try to educate you yet again about Christian belief, but it wouldn't mean a thing because it's nothing you don't already know, although you keep pretending not to

 

[muhammad_isa]

..perhaps God sent Jesus to sort out a few minor issues with the Jewish religion, but instead Jesus did stuff that nearly got him killed, unless God had whisked him back up to heaven just in time to get him safe..

Well, John the Baptist got his head cut off..
I don't blame G-d for that

 

[RJM]

There is no problem with people from other faiths who do not understand Christianity – especially Catholicism. It's natural, and often they are interested in hearing what Christians, or Catholics, actually do believe -- instead of telling them what they believe -- and gain the subtleties about what they have picked up from second or third hand sources, that are often hostile. Nothing is ever so simple. It can't be fixed into a couple of one-liners.

Usually people who have not acquired a reasonable working knowledge of the scriptures of another faith, or taken time to learn a bit about it through honest channels, are hesitant to wade in and bash that faith, that is not their own. However it appears there is one religion of which many followers make it a mission to attack others, regardless and ignoring of whatever correct information they might receive.

Their mind is made up about it by what they have read in their own book, and what they have heard in their own places of worship. Their minds are totally closed to knowing the actual truth and subtlety of that other belief. It's impossible to have a proper discussion with such people, imo

But then, it's all been said before

 

[RJM]

"I came to conquer, stayed to learn"

 

[RJM]

Christ the universal and eternal hears and responds to sincere prayer, imo. It doesn't matter what name I give. It doesn't matter I believe in a blue eyed Jesus surname Christ, or the Christ filled man Jesus, or the resurrection or the Trinity or other thousand permutations -- God knows. God meets me where I am.

Arrogance, spiritual pride, certainty of my own righteousness -- violence in the name of religion -- What concourse hath Christ with Belial

God meets me where I am: any time, any place, any faith, imo

 

[Namaste Jesus]

God meets me where I am: any time, any place, any faith, imo

Well there ya go, says it all!

I always think, attempting to cast doubt on someone else's faith, ultimately casts doubt on your own.