Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Interesting....I had no idea about Islam *goes off to plot an attack on Islam* _> Not really but...Seriously I didn't know that Islam was doing this, Thanks for the information ^^ Learn something new every day




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'll just stick to the original points the College Prof states....

"He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."


First, a prior post specifies a prior meaning of the word cross, in greek is a little broader definition. TRUE!

Now the word crucified is more implicit in the greek, meaning "impaled" on a cross.

In the new testament, John 20: Thomas explicitly speaks of the nail marks in Jesus' hands.

So just reading the plain text as the Prof states and not adding to it we can reason the text states he was impaled with nails. I suggest the Professor re-read his text (I used the KJV) more extensively.

So was it a pole? or a cross (as we know in the christian symbol)? The question is which would have made him suffer more (hey, the Romans liked to dish it out).

Nailing his hands overhead "as on a post" or nailing his outstretched hands as on a cross.

I think the cross leads to a more brutal suffocation aspect - but, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE nor does it lend for truth.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
For all the doubters in this thread:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is fact.


Nonsense.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence -

The Absence of evidence for leprechauns IS evidence of absence of leprechauns.

The Absence of evidence for angels IS evidence of absence of angels.

The Absence of evidence for faeries IS evidence of absence of faeries.

The Absence of evidence for unicorns IS evidence of absence of unicorns.


Or do YOU believe in leprechauns?
And faeries? angels? unicorns?


There is NO hard evidence for Jesus at all - just STORIES from unknown hands, full of fantasy miracles, written specifically to make people BELIEVE (that's what the authors say.)

The total absence of hard historical evidence for Jesus (along with all the evidence of religious fantasy and myths), is good evidence of his absence.


Kap



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Nonsense.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence -


nonsense, then, to you.

absence of evidence of the Coelacanth turned out to be just absence of evidence.
and we're talking a 80 million year absence of evidence.

link

every time a new species of bird or plant or fish or animal is found, your premise is nonsense, again.


There is NO hard evidence for Jesus at all - just STORIES from unknown hands, full of fantasy miracles, written specifically to make people BELIEVE (that's what the authors say.)


well, that doesn't mean you have to let it get to you like it does.
just blow it off.
blow the whole Jesus thing off and forget all about it.
i don't think anyone minds too much if you don't believe - and i think that the authors you refer to are most likely dead, so they won't complain.
no one is going to "make" you do anything you don't want to do, including "believe," so why sweat it?

the best favor you can do for yourself is to put the whole idea out of your mind and keep it out. it doesn't matter, anyway. not really.

but you won't be able to get over it unless you quit entering into conversations that will remind you of it.
that's totally up to you.

and please know i am not trying to be facetious. i'm serious. there's no reason for anyone to have to put up with ideas and philosophies that mean nothing to them! i don't want to, don't have to, and so i don't. neither should you!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Only all her life and if they did believe that they would be Christians. Unless you or I are misunderstanding what Messiah is meant by in this context.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


do you honestly think if there was a supreme overlord or creator of the universe that he would be anything like he is described in the tyranous accounts of the abrahamic religions; islam, christianity, juduism? I think "GOD" be much more grander than that, without flawed ethics, morals and general reasoning and care.

But i don't believe in God, because its an unessisary assumption, just because science has not discovered God doesn't mean to say that it exists, or that he has demands of your life. Occams Razor - don't make retarded, irrational assumptions.

Its a proposterus concept, out of date, and religiously insane are forcing its absolutist rules and regulations onto our developed social democracy run countries, its despicable and it should not be taught to our children.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

do you honestly think if there was a supreme overlord or creator of the universe that he would be anything like he is described in the tyranous accounts of the abrahamic religions; islam, christianity, juduism? I think "GOD" be much more grander than that, without flawed ethics, morals and general reasoning and care.


no. in fact, i KNOW there isn't.


But i don't believe in God, because its an unessisary assumption, just because science has not discovered God doesn't mean to say that it exists, or that he has demands of your life. Occams Razor - don't make retarded, irrational assumptions.


well, but what to you may seem as retarded, irrational assumptions are not necessarily that. it all depends on personal experience and yours and mine and anyone else's are each unique.

belief in GOD is not necessary, you are right.
but on the other hand, at least for me, it is not an assumption.


Its a proposterus concept, out of date, and religiously insane are forcing its absolutist rules and regulations onto our developed social democracy run countries, its despicable and it should not be taught to our children.


i agree.
religion is poisonous in more ways that i care to think about right now, although i've given it lots of thought already.

but i also say that religion and GOD...and the possibilities of both there being GOD and there not being GOD, are two different things altogether.

in most people's minds, they are linked up and are assigned many of the same qualities and requisites. but this is not because it is a true correlation - it is only a product of the human mind that is often allowed to rule over common sense.

common sense does not necessitate either a need to believe or disbelieve in deity. however, it does necessitate the need to keep things out of the realm of personal desires and hopes if it is going to be examined dispassionately.

the only way to find the truth is by keeping emotions out of it - which means one cannot be ruled by their emotions. that is what dominates religion; the tendency to let emotional urges and responses act in the stead of objective thinking.

we should teach our children to think for themselves rather than trying to tell them how or what to think because that is what we think. they have such better ideas than we will, anyway, just by virtue of evolution.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by queenannie38]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

we should teach our children to think for themselves rather than trying to tell them how or what to think


Well i'm glad we agree on something.

[edit on 31/7/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Hey you said
"if Islam considered Jesus the messiah, then why do they still wait for one?"

But the Jews wait for one it is not in Islam that they have a messiah If you look at the messiah as being God in the flesh or word of God i know messiah means chosen one and anointed one.

But because Jesus said i and the father are one and I am of the father and the father of me as well as to know me is to know God. (just paraphrasing) Most would say yes he is God in the flesh .

People of Islam (all the ones i met) Don't believe God would ever ummmm "dirty himself" by being in the flesh. So by this meaning and stander there is no messiah in Islam.


Hope i was clear on that if not then sorry im in a rush.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

Um just one point here you said "democracy run countries" But i live in the USA and it my seem that way but for now it still is (and if i can help it) will always be a republic.
The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. That is all.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


If the Republicans had it their way, and according to the bible- the USA would still be homophobic, racist, slave-owners. The right to free speech and social democracy offers those opressed to voice their opinions and protect them from such hatred and bigotry.


[edit on 10/8/10 by awake_and_aware]





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join