Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

Originally posted by texastig
Listen to the six part series by Gary Habermas on Youtube called:
"The Resurrection of Jesus."
www.youtube.com...

He proves that Jesus died on the cross.

Robert Price proves that Habermas was wrong :

www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...


"But the salient point is this: Habermas is still locking horns (in the mirror) with the eighteenth-century Protestant Rationalists when he simply assumes we know that the earliest Christians were the named people in the gospels and Acts who did the deeds and said the words depicted in those texts. But as Mack says, these stories are themselves the final products of a myth-making tendency in some quarters, and not all, of early Christianity. They represent the end result of one kind of Christian faith, not the root and foundation of all Christian faith. There is not only no particular reason to think the gospel Easter narratives or the 1 Corinthians 15 list preserve accurate data on the Easter morning experiences. There is not any particularly compelling evidence to suggest that the stories even go back to anyone’s experiences. They are one and all mythic and literary in nature. Or they sure look like it, and there’s nothing much on the other side of the scale."


Kap

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

What I mean by Hallmarks is you have the crusade to prove it wrong (those who do not believe do not seek additional information, they are already convinced.)

I believe Jesus did spend his 'lost time' in and around the areas reported in the book I quoted.
Do I believe the account portrayed in the book is accurate?
If I had to choose, I'd probably say yes, as nothing reported contradicts Jesus' teachings.
It may well be a hoax or in a better light a desperate attempt made by someone who wants to believe and tried to make it so. (Actually a few people not just one man).

Notovitch is known to be a HOAX.

But that doesn't stop BELIEVERS.


Kap

Originally posted by octotom
You might want to broaden your scope of modern NT scholars. There most certain are plenty of NT scholars who believe that the NT books were written by people who met Jesus, save Luke and Acts.

Wrong.

The consensus of SCHOLARS is that NOT ONE book of the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus.

But there are some BELIEVERS who do.

Why can't YOU quote one SCHOLAR (not a BELIEVER who pretends to be a scholar) who does so?

Originally posted by octotom
Not everyone believes that 2 Peter was forged either nor written in the second century.

It is the consensus of modern scholars.


Kap

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by autowrench

 

So the choice is to believe in the Bible, arguably the greatest book ever written, the book of LIVING FAITH for BILLIONS of people...

What nonsense !
That's just YOUR BELIEF!

You are preaching your BELIEFS as if they are fact.
Typical apologetics.


Kap

Originally posted by silo13
Science is legend for putting trust in theories.

Sadly,
this comment shows you don't understand science, or the word "theory".


Kap

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
No one is doubting the possibilitythat a man named Jesus was crucified,

I do.
Many others do.

Jesus was a MYTH.
He never even existed, let alone was crucified.


Kap

Originally posted by alienreality
I believe this scholar is wrong since there were reputable witnesses to his crucifiction on a cross and those were recorded...

Wrong.

There is no hard evidence for Jesus even EXISTING, let alone witnesses to crucifiction [sic].

Not one of the books in the NT were written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

That's the consensus of modern NT scholars.
But believers are the LAST to know these facts.

Originally posted by alienreality
I don't believe it was a lie....

Pay ATTENTION !!!
No-ONE said it was a lie !
The Jesus myth argument does NOT claim it was a lie !

As if there are only 2 possibilities :
* complete 100% truth
* lie


Kap

Originally posted by ztruthseeker
There is evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and lived the rest of his days in Kashmir, India, with his mother mary.
www.tombofjesus.com...

Evidence?
Where is the evidence?

All you posted is CLAIMS and BELIEFS.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
No one is doubting the possibilitythat a man named Jesus was crucified,

I do.
Many others do.

Jesus was a MYTH.
He never even existed, let alone was crucified.


Kap

i don't believe in this wacko nonsense either, bbut i believe there is a possibility that people were crucified a lot back then, and a man name Jesus may have been crucified - its a possiblity, the whole God story, utter BS

I don't think Jesus was crucified; was born under a star, or had twelve disciples. TPTB of the time killed him and tampered with his story in order to make him fulfill some OT prophecies and match the sybolism with which their regime is still obsessed. They couldn't destroy his teachings so they infiltrated and took over (the Catholic church), a practice they favour today. He had a damn good go at changing the world, but ultimately failed. I believe he will return and complete his mission and he'd better get a bloody move on. If he does return I think the Christians will have a very hard time accepting him.

The truth is Jesus Christ, but not like he was portrayed in the Bible. He was a man in conflict and was considered unhinged by many and was a revolutionary that believed the revolution started with yourself. He was wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, faith, hope and charity. He wasn't pride, covetousness, lust, anger, over-indulgence, envy or sloth.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

BIBLE:

And he went forward a little, and prostrated on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (Mark, 14:35-36)

“In the days of his flesh, he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to SAVE him from death, and he was heard because of his piety” (Heb 5.7).

QUR'AN:

... but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them ... (4:157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself. (4:158)

Seek, and you shall find the Truth.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Seek, and you shall find the Truth.

The truth? the truth to me is knowing the earth is spherical and not flat, absolute truth is knowing the speed of sound, absolute truth is knowing that the earth travels around the sun, rather than the other way around.

Thats truth.

Truth isn't a mystical being, made my man that can't be proved, that says you can eat ham in one religion but no in the other, that says its ok to have many wives in one, but not in the other scripture, 1 states that women are inferior to men - This is not truth, do not confuse religion with truth. No not confuse your scriptures with truth, this is not truth.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Seek, and you shall find the Truth.

I did.
I studied history etc, read the books, and checked it all.

The Truth is :
Jesus was a myth who never existed.


Seek and you will find the REAL Truth.


Kap

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Seek, and you shall find the Truth.

The truth? the truth to me is knowing the earth is spherical and not flat, absolute truth is knowing the speed of sound, absolute truth is knowing that ...................

The predisposition is this: If a book tells something about a historical person, although you cant (yet) find any proof about that person, then to be sure this was so, you analyze the Book.
If the Book proves that it cannot indeed have been authored by anyone else than God, THEN EVERYTHING that this Book says is UNDOUBTEDLY the Truth, no matter how strange or incomprehensible it might seem to you.

Do not speak about any religion or their books without knowledge, which is what you are doing, right there in your post.

To give you an example on the above said: There was mention of a guy called "XYZ" in a book, who so was written in the book, was an associate of the pharao.
For years, all "scholars", doubters (like you), and those who hate that particular book, LAUGHED in our faces - because there was no historical proof whatsoever that this guy existed at all, moreover they claimed this book mixed up things and took the name of a guy who lived 1000 years later in a totally different region, thus "proving" their claims that the author of this book just "copied" myths and legends from other books, but since he wasnt very skilled, he sometimes mixed up stuff ...

All this flew in their face when it was discovered that in some ancient egyptian writings (that werent deciphered until then) the claim of the book was undoubtedly proven, there WAS indeed a guy named "XYZ" who was an associate of pharao.
The name had been lost in history, because the hieroglyph language was dead for THOUSANDS of years, and no one could read it anymore until late 19th century.

This shows that whoever authored that book, had indeed Knowledge unavailable to human kind.

It is the same book that undoubtedly speaks about the Earth not only being ROUND but it describes it more or less as an ostrich egg, which is not quite spherical just like the actual Earth is.

This same book talks beyond the shadow of a doubt about the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe - 1400 years before these discoveries were made. It talks about pulsars, dark matter, black holes, m-theory, cellular biology, biochemistry, etc. etc.

Many who are presented with these facts try to do away with them by once again saying that it is we who are "interpreting" things into this book.

Really?

How am I "interpreting into" this claim:

"And it is We who have built the universe with power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."

Nope, you cant get away from this, we are not "interpreting into" nor making up: the word translated here as "expanding" is "musi'un" which means exactly that: expanding, making wider, larger...

A book that gives hints like this pushes you to seek for more - when you do that you find hundreds of other hard facts which undoubtedly show that the authorship of this particular book is divine.

Now, no matter what history says, no matter lack of proof, writings or whatever, when THIS book tells me that Jesus lived and was a prophet of God, I believe it. And when it tells me that God SAVED him from the people who wanted to harm him, I believe it too.

You doubt now, but what, just like in the case given above, in a not so distant future scientists find proof about Jesus' life?

In your place I would feel dumb.

Gday,

Originally posted by skajkingdom
To give you an example on the above said: There was mention of a guy called "XYZ" in a book, who so was written in the book, was an associate of the pharao.
For years, all "scholars", doubters (like you), and those who hate that particular book, LAUGHED in our faces - because there was no historical proof whatsoever that this guy existed at all, moreover they claimed this book mixed up things and took the name of a guy who lived 1000 years later in a totally different region, thus "proving" their claims that the author of this book just "copied" myths and legends from other books, but since he wasnt very skilled, he sometimes mixed up stuff ...

All this flew in their face when it was discovered that in some ancient egyptian writings (that werent deciphered until then) the claim of the book was undoubtedly proven, there WAS indeed a guy named "XYZ" who was an associate of pharao.
The name had been lost in history, because the hieroglyph language was dead for THOUSANDS of years, and no one could read it anymore until late 19th century.

What are you talking about ?
Who?
Where is the evidence?

Originally posted by skajkingdom
It is the same book that undoubtedly speaks about the Earth not only being ROUND but it describes it more or less as an ostrich egg, which is not quite spherical just like the actual Earth is.

So what?
The ancients knew the world wasn't flat.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
This same book talks beyond the shadow of a doubt about the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe - 1400 years before these discoveries were made. It talks about pulsars, dark matter, black holes, m-theory, cellular biology, biochemistry, etc. etc.

No it doesn't.
That's why you have totally failed to prodice ANY evidence along with your preaching.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
You doubt now, but what, just like in the case given above, in a not so distant future scientists find proof about Jesus' life?

What will you do when scholars determine Jesus was a myth?

Originally posted by skajkingdom
In your place I would feel dumb.

Feel dumb?
Your post sure feels dumb.


Kap

I have posted the evidence on several threads in this forum. I don't intend to post it each time someone posts some drivel. It would be too long. And I'm writing from my iphone right now.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
I have posted the evidence on several threads in this forum. I don't intend to post it each time someone posts some drivel. It would be too long. And I'm writing from my iphone right now.

Ah, the old
"I've posted the evidence elsewhere"
excuse.

Well - guess what?

I've already posted, in various threads here, actual real hard evidence which shows you are wrong.

Convinced?
No? Then why did you use that silly argument.

Sure, you've posted preaching from your holy book.
So what? Everyone does that here.

Where's the actual external EVIDENCE that supports your preaching?



Kap

reply to post by skajkingdom

If a book tells something about a historical person, although you cant (yet) find any proof about that person, then to be sure this was so, you analyze the Book.
If the Book proves that it cannot indeed have been authored by anyone else than God, THEN EVERYTHING that this Book says is UNDOUBTEDLY the Truth, no matter how strange or incomprehensible it might seem to you.

More babble; do you really think you can compare Biblical tales and its laws on how to live life to Historical books just because a religious book is a book....

Have you heard of primary and secondary evidence. Do you not think a lot of History would be questioned if there was little and no evidence to prove it or even theorise it? Historical documents are the accumulation of information and artifacts that we have collected and accumulated with the sharing of knowledge and written communication.

I'm not saying the bible and other scriptures doesn't contain what at the time was fact, or interpretations of it, and anyway, the real evidence is hidden behind the poetic language, often misinterpreted.

Get your FACTS straight before you make illogical assumptions and comparing science or history to religion.

A book on fairies, santa claus or beings in other "realms" have just as much weight as your invisible hidden universal dictator in the fact that it is UNFALSIFIABLE, and you couldn't know its wishes, even if its in a book. Awaiting your response.


Peace

A&A


[edit on 30/6/10 by awake_and_aware]

[edit on 30/6/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by Mike Stivic
Ill believe anything he says after he shows me his autopsy report...

Anyone can say anything they want about someone who lived 2000 years ago and if you find them credible you will believe it..its all subjective its all matter of opinion, i dont see how what this man says changes anything.

~meathead

In the words of the Prophet, Archie: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you are one dumb Polack!"

Sorry...I simply couldn't resist! Great avatar!

Originally posted by jeanne75018

Originally posted by dusty1
Good article. Check out wikipedia, the meaning of the Greek word Stauros

Jehovah's Witnesses for years have believed that Christ died on a stake or tree.

Actually, "stauros" means pole or cross. The Greeks only have one word for the two.
Jehovah's Witnesses must be very thankful to this scientist who "proves" their belief that Jesus died on a pole. Jehovah's Witnesses tell lies, it's a sect and their translation of the Bible is a falsification. They decided Jesus died on a pole to differentiate themselves from the Catholic church, that's all, this is political, not based on facts.

[edit on 25/6/2010 by jeanne75018]

Jehovah's Witnesses tell lies, like the catholic Church tells the truth??? Oh stop it, please! That is hilarious