Did Jesus Die?

I dont know wether you have discussed this yet, Ive had a look and cant find anything. Firstly I am not trying to upset anyone, I saw a very interesting documentary about this on BBC4.
This film investigates the variety of stories surrounding the New Testament account of the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, by interviewing historians, theologians and historical researchers. This exploration of the latest theories about what really happened to Jesus 2000 years ago uncovers some surprising possibilities.

At the heart of the mystery is the suspicion that Jesus might not actually have died on the cross. The film concludes that it was perfectly possible to survive crucifixion in the 1st Century - there are records of people who did. And he was only on the cross for six hours. But if Jesus survived, what happened to him afterwards?
One of the most remarkable stories concerns the charismatic preacher Jus Asaf (Leader of the Healed) who arrived in Kashmir in around 30 AD. Just before he died at the age of 80, Jus Asaf claimed that he was in fact Jesus Christ and the programme shows his tomb, next to which are his carved footprints which bear the scars of crucifixion.
CHECK OUT: www.change.freeuk.com...
This gives another persons views on the documentary so we can get a good discussion going.

That no man can predict the time of the 2nd coming? Ever thought about a logical proof of that? If you say that Jesus will come between - infinity and + infinity in time then all possible segments in time are covered and there is only one way for the saying to be true and that is if Jesus never left.

err did you read what I wrote? I wasnt talking about the second coming, I was wondering wether jesus actually died on the cross, and wether he was related to any of the historical figures suggested in a documentary I saw. No offense but read it before you reply.

Ah yes! The swoon theory. I think if you examine the details of crucifixion you find that relaxing your legs, and pretending to be dead would kill you. That's why the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves on either side of Jesus. To quicken their death. Hanging from your arms with them spread out, compresses your chest cavity making it difficult to breath. You would only be able to hang in this manner for about 15 min. before your diaphragm would get too fatigued to function properly and you would die of asphyxiation.

We know that He hung on the cross for at least 30 min after his death making it impossible for Him to fake it for a few min. After he dies, Joseph walked back into town (maybe rode a donkey), and went to Pilate's court to ask for Jesus's body. Pilate sent for the centurion in charge to ask if he was really dead. The centurion probably went out and checked to make sure then had to go back to Pilate. Now Joseph could go back out of town to the cross, and claim Jesus' body with a note from Pilate. In reality this probably took at least an hour. That's a long time to pretend you're not breathing.

And they ran a lance through his side piercing a lung and probably his heart as well. Lastly, I highly doubt that the executioners that took him off the cross would overlook it if he was still breathing.

Did Jesus die to quickly on the cross? Was it quick considering that he was:
* beat up by the Jewish council
* flogged (Which was considered too cruel for a Roman citizen)
* beat with a cane
* Beaten by soldiers
* has thorns jammed onto his head. (You know how scalp woulds bleed)
* He has nails driven through his wrist and feet
* A soldier runs a lance through him

The soldiers escorted them to the tomb, and made sure he was in there. Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. If he had still been alive, how would he survive 3 days in a tomb with all those wounds, and massive blood loss? And then he overcomes a Roman guard, and walks away on feet that had spikes driven through them?

Most convincing is that fact that he convinced his disciples that he had risen and conquered the grave. Later, most of them were beaten and killed upholding their statements that he was risen. Why would these individuals do this unless they truly believed. There was nothing in it for them to lie up to the point of being killed for their statements. Nothing in it for them at all, unless Jesus did rise from the dead and showed them that he had conquered. Nothing less would have convinced them to act the way that they did.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates

Most convincing is that fact that he convinced his disciples that he had risen and conquered the grave. Later, most of them were beaten and killed upholding their statements that he was risen. Why would these individuals do this unless they truly believed. There was nothing in it for them to lie up to the point of being killed for their statements. Nothing in it for them at all, unless Jesus did rise from the dead and showed them that he had conquered. Nothing less would have convinced them to act the way that the did.

WAY too well said - couldn't have said it better myself. Beautiful!!!

Thanks, godservant. I was actually looking for more facts to back up my claim, when it hit me. The disciples actions are possibly the greatest proof of His resurrection. Nice signature I love those things. "He is"... risen.

A very well constructed answer but you are missing the fundamental point: That is are the gospels true, this documentary backed up by a number of respected historians claim that any mention of the resurection was not added to the gospels untill 200 years after the fact. The reason why the gospels differ widely is becaus they were written from different standpoints to justify a particular religious sects point of view.
Plus I am not saying that christ faked his death but that he went into some kind of coma, his legs weren't broken, like the criminals, though he was taken down six hours after being put up when it is well known it takes DAYS to die on the cross. Look at people in the phillipines they are regularly crucifeid and all live to tell the tale. wouldn't the disciples defend the life of their spiritual leader by dying to a cover story, stranger things have happened.
I am asking you to look at the evidence and not let your personal beliefs get in the way.

Did Jesus Die? Well remember Jesus raiseing from the dead is how christainity started. This is the divinity of Jesus and proved he was the son of god. If he didnt there probally would be no christainity. Now you cant ask me if he really did since I did not live then but that is why it is called faith.

Originally posted by bigdanprice
A very well constructed answer but you are missing the fundamental point: That is are the gospels true, this documentary backed up by a number of respected historians claim that any mention of the resurection was not added to the gospels untill 200 years after the fact.

That is possible - but not likely. Imagine if something like that was to happen today - no one would let that happen. You grow up learning about the writings and teachings about the Christ and somebody wants to change it? The people that knew the original story would not allow that to happen, and if they could not stop it, there would be some record somewhere from some people trying to warn future generations that this was false. No way it could get through without anyone knowing that it was changed. Too many books would be modified in the new testament - I don't think it could happen.

This is an excellent book that presents the evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection.

www.amazon.com...=1096470841/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/104-7950532-8027126

I find it very hard to believe that the words of the bible have remained un changed since they were written. We KNOW that the bible was written in greek then translated into Latin, then into English, look at any translation tool on the web or if you have studied any foreign language, its very difficult to grasp and translate exact meanings. What about SPIN, something this whole website talks about, presenting information in such a way as it supports you and your ideology.

Ressurection is not included in the bible until 200 years after the event. It was not written by contemporaries of Jesus rather included by different factions of christianity to support their version of events, what better way to justify your movement by claiming the divinty of your spiritual leader. We have seem plenty of cases in the last century of people doing this. Then who translated the bible as we know it? The Catholic Church, monks and priests being in control of literacy, are they going to write about anyhthing that illegitamises their position of immense power in the early christian world. I think it is very naive to consider other wise.
So we come around to the original point. There is physical evidence that christ did not die on the cross, coming form three contrasting sources one that he went to the south of france with mary magdalene , one that he did die was buried and was found by the knights templar and taken to France. The other is very interesting the story of Jus Asaf, a kashmiri holy man who is buried in kashmir who was a buddhist teacher from israel who returned in later life to israel then returned bearing wounds of crucifiction claiming to be jesus . He is buried there you can see his tomb. Nothing is known of christ between the ages of 14 and 29 and it is argued he went to kashmir, where one of the other ten tribes of israel ended up and was taught buddhist beliefs, before christianity we see none of the new testament love in jewish tradition but after christ we see stark similarites between buddhist and christian faith, such as the meek shall inherit the earth etc. He went back to israel but left after crucifiction to continue his work with the other tribes of israel. Phew long I know but had to get that over.
LOOK AT THIS
www.change.freeuk.com...

Originally posted by bigdanprice
carved footprints which bear the scars of crucifixion.

Think about that for a second. Carved 'footprints' with possible marks that might be crucifixion marks? And why no contact between the evangelizing apostles and their charismatic leader?

bigdanprice
that any mention of the resurection was not added to the gospels untill 200 years after the fact.

Since the earliest gospels themselves only appear around 200 years after the supposed events, how do you think this is possible? And what researchers think this? What is their reasoning?

There is physical evidence that christ did not die on the cross,

There is no evidence of any of the events proported to have occured.

one that he went to the south of france with mary magdalene

Where is the evidence to support this?

one that he did die was buried and was found by the knights templar and taken to France

nearly 2 millenia later?

claiming to be jesus

I don't think that he actually claimed to be jesus tho.

where one of the other ten tribes of israel ended up

Some has speculated that some people in the region are such, there is some evidence, but its slight.

Uhm, the article you linked to, it was linked in the very first post.
Fortean Times has an excellent overview of the stuff you brought up.

[edit on 29-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Thanks for pointing a few things out, The thing I am taking about is a documentary on UK tv here
I re posted the link because to understand what I mean you need to look at the site, it goes through the documentary blow by blow. They are not my theories as such; though I believe them to be plausible, I just wanted to promote a discussion on the topic to see what others thought.
Thanks though, I was knocking out a post between lectures so it was a bit scanty on fact.

BBC Four: Your central question is did Jesus die on the cross rather than did Jesus die at all.
Richard Denton: It is really. I originally wanted to call it The Body of Christ because that seems to me to be the crucial question. Obviously he died at some point, but when and how is the question.

BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion?
RD: Crucifixion took up to three days; the maximum he was on the cross for was nine hours, it might even have been six. And even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead. My personal take on it would be that he goes into a shock induced coma, and probably they thought he was dead.

BBC Four: If he did survive why do you think it's not related in that way in the gospels?
RD: First of all, they would think it was a miraculous resurrection. You don't have to think of that as a conspiracy theory or a lie, it's just a mistake. What you then have to do is get him out of the way. The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven.

BBC Four: You make the point that the Ascension isn't actually mentioned in the gospels.
RD: It's not in any of the original versions of the gospels which is astonishing. It was in the last 16 verses of Mark, which were put in 300 years after and it's inserted, in a sentence, into some versions of Luke because he was assumed to have written the Acts and it's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. That I think is the lie, the cover story to get him out of the country.

BBC Four: If Jesus was revived in this way where then did he go?
RD: One story is that he gets out and goes to the South of France with Mary Magdalene, there is a certain amount of evidence that she went there. And the other is that he goes to India and there are a number of versions of this. One of which suggests that in fact he had already been to India during the missing years between 12 and 29.

BBC Four: It was very interesting the parallel between the story of the three kings and the search for a reincarnated Lama�
RD: Absolutely, we explore that and the similarities between the miracles and the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus in the programme. And of course Buddha pre-dates Jesus by about 500 years, so it's not unreasonable that he may have gone to India, learned Buddhist teaching and brought it back. Then when he returns to India after the crucifixion he carries on the ministry in Kashmir until he dies at the age of 80.

BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic?
RD: I was intrigued because most academic theologians and intelligent churchmen, or a very significant number of them, do not believe that the resurrection is the literal truth. It's a metaphor to tell us that there is hope. Whilst not saying that it's a literal truth they don't actually say it's a lie, but if you're saying something's not literal truth then you are saying it's a lie. I was shocked that none of the people we interviewed, with the exception of the Cannon of Westminster, believed it was true. Yet if they don't think it's true what on earth do they think is the motivation behind writing the story in the Bible?

BBC Four: You say that the resurrection and the literal truth of the Gospel have in the past been the cornerstone of Christianity.
RD: Exactly. And the idea that you can go on preaching this to the ordinary stupid faithful while not believing it yourself seemed to me truly offensive. So what I was looking for was another version of the story that had the possibility of being historically true, that could have been misinterpreted by the people at the time, so that what they said was not a lie, it was the way they understood it.

BBC Four: And in the end have you found that the most credible account?
RD: Yes, I think so. On the other hand I am a person who does not find the idea of rising from the dead and ascending into heaven credible. I'm faced with the choice, do I believe that the gospel writers were cunning liars or do I think they were simple men who misunderstood things and were amazed by this man.

BBC Four: And did these feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green?
RD: I personally don't think they did walk upon England's mountains green, I think they walked upon Kashmir's mountains green. They may have walked in France for all I know.

[edit on 29-9-2004 by bigdanprice]

Well, the fortean article looks at the history of these claims, there doesn;t seem to be any convincing evidence supporting any of them. IF you come across any, lemme know, I'd be intersted, post it here.

Groupies:

Roman Crucifixion was reserved for political Seditionists ONLY.

It usually takes approx 70 hours to kill a man nailed through the wrists and ankles from a Roman Cross--that is as long as he had some leg support---e.g. a "sedilla" anal-plug placed into the anal cavity ("take YOUR SEAT upon the Cross!" was a famous Roman insult) or the popular "foot rests" designed to support the body---for the sole purpose of prolonging the agony for as long as possible.

[Of course some hanging from crosses were castrated and their privates placed into their mouths (an ugly but very common procedure unfortunatley) and others were disembowelled with the intestines wrapped around the victim, and often they would tie the criminal's children to the same cross with the intestines wrapped around them as well. ]

According to Mark and the other Bishop-approved "canonical" gospels in the NT, "Iesous" was ONLY on the CROSS for 6 hours ("from the 3rd hour...to the 9th hour" i.e. from 9am to 3pm).

So "Iesous" could well have been still very much alive when he was deposed from the cross (if he was deposed from the cross the same day)....but Mark and the others like the number 3 for liturgical reasons, and tend to kaleidescope the accounts of many months into a single week, e.g. Holy Week modelled on the Holy Week of Attis (who also was killed, nourned and rose again followed by the Feast of Hilaria = rejoicing, every Spring Equinox).

And one wonders about what was actually in that "sponge" (Jeremiah's and the Psalmists midrashic "guiding wording" not withstanding) they put to his mouth on a pole or hyssop sprig (did he drink from it or not? Read the four gospel accounts, none of which match in detail: some say YES others say NO, he DID NOT DRINK FROM IT).

A book called THE PASSOVER PLOT (by Hugh Shoenfield) seems to conclude that some kind of Snake Venom was used, and "the dew of herbs in the Morning" ( as the book of Job phrases the midrash) was used to "revive him" i.e. medically..

But you can file that under things that make you go....hmmmmmmm.....!

But by any stretch, 6 hours on a cross was not considered "punishment enough" by the Romans for a man accused of political sedition (breach of Lex Maiestatis: No King but Caesar, and definitely no armed disciples with swords cutting off high priest slave's ears on hills at Passover !) and generally even Jewish insurrectionists during Pilate's time were deliberately left on their crosses after death to be picked apart by carrion birds (eyes first...and all that)---for weeks sometimes.

All that rushing around before sundown to protect the sanctity of the Sabbath seems to have been "apologetic" nonsense by the later gospel writers to give the story the excuse it needed to bring "Iesous" down from the gibbet so early....where as the "bribing of Pilate" (one of his many charming characteristics according to contemporary Roman and Egyptian Literature) may well have been the real ("historical") reason why "iesous" he was taken down so fast...and this "Iesous" a Daviddic pretender with some powerful friends in high places, would have had someone near him scramble at the last minute to save him...

(the Mishnah even stated as much : The reason why Y.E.Sh.U was dangerous was because "he had high connections with royalty...")

And the word "high connections" may be applicable to the details we find even in the heavilly re-written Greek NT Gospel material...

Also MARK's gospel (but ONLY MARK, which happens to be the earliest written Greek Gospel...) mentions that the SOMA of "Iesous" was deposed from the cross ("living body") NOT THE PTOMA ("dead corpse") so this might be a clue that he was still alive:

ALSO: according to Mark's Gospel (again, only MARK !), the Roman praefect Pontius Pilatus was said to have been "firmly unconvinced that Iesous could have been dead so soon" and sent out a Centurion to check out the facts.

Interesting also is the fact that the Passion Narratives have Joseph of Har-Imathea (whoever he was, possibly the next of kin, i.e. another Daviddic member of the Blood) "begging" (i.e. bribing) Pilatus for the "soma" (live body) suggests that some effort was made on the part of the immediate (?) family or circle to ransom "Iesous" before he expired.

Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish Historian-Turncoat actually relates a case (in the Antiquities of the Jews, re-written in Greek around 88 AD) concerning 3 crucified criminals whose families bribed the authorities to depose them from their crosses, 2 of which apparently were taken down in time to live to tell the tale...so there are stories of people surviving such heinous tortures...

This would certainly give credence to resurrection pericopes (narratives) (none of which match each other however.....read 'em and weep !)

Only John's gospel mentions the LANCE incident ("and out flowed blood and water...") in order to fulfil a prophecy (or "symbolically" reflect on one:

"and in that day they shall mourn for him as an ONLY SON, as they LOOK UPON HIM WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED...") and someone in the copying out of the MSS of John felt it necessary to add in the margin : "this is the disciple who witnessed these things" and some other person wrote underneat "and WE know that HIS testimony is trustworthy..." whoever WE and HIS are...two separate grammatical voices are involved...

So the earliest Gospel of Mark (allegedly based on "Simon" Peter's preaching) might contain some historical "clues" that there is MORE to this story than meets the eye....

Historians are still a little stumped over the introduction of new characters in the end (e.g. Joseph of Har-Imathea) which may suggest that the narratives were originally longer and contained more details than the pared down/heavilly edited versions the later Bishop-councils approved for general consumption.

The details that may have been exised may have pointed to a "surviving iesous" (i.e. a suffering servant, not a dead one) and that would have impacted the theology of "the antoning blood of the Sacrificial Lamb" etc.

But without a video camera back in those days, we have to rely on Greek translations of oral gospels that circulated for at least 40 years before being written down in any where near their present forms...!!

Possible thought...

Jesus' brother James is truly the one who died on the cross. A clever ruse and incredible sacrifice nonetheless.... Further perpetrated by Joseph of Arimethea and those present at the Crucifixion/Resurrection.

Jesus then travelled to France, Riennes to be specific, along with Mary of Magdelene, and had children, prospered, etc.

Look into Riennes, France for more info...

I know that the new testament is not the same as it was originally, there have been some subtle changes hear in there in the first couple hundred years of Christianity. There is also the LOT that we don't know. Christ may have very well went to other places as mentioned above - some even say to south america as well. Changes that big - from ressurection to NOT ressurection seems to extreme to pass off.

Although too much emphisis is placed on Christ I think. He was come to give a message - THAT is what shoud be the focus. What he did and where he went really doesn't matter. God is the one that is important.

After reading this post, though, I am going to look into buddism.

Hi Gazrok:

In his book, The Jewish War, Flavius Josephus, no mean historian for his day, writes that R. Yakkov bar Yosef Ha Tsaddiq (James the Just) continued the "Daviddic" Nazorean church in Jerusalem with quite a following ("whose brother was known as Christos") until approx the year AD 62 when he was apparently lynched in the Temple during a riot for some kind of Blasphemy and thrown off a parapet, then (according to legend) beaten to death with a club by benei Zadokim (Saduccean priests and the mob that supported them).

The letters of Paul (e.g. Galatians chapter 2, where he is named as one of the "so called Pillars") and the book of Acts chpater 15 both seem to have James alive and well far into the 50s AD...

Another brother named Judah bar Yosef haThomah ("The Twin" or Judas Didymos Thomas) apparently had been captured and nearly stoned to death several times by Judaean authorities thinking him to be "Iesous" ("No, I'm not him, I'm his brother!") , while the real "Jesus" slipped by in the crowds. Thomas ("ha Tomah" = "the Twin") may have been "iesous' body double (fairly common event with Kings and Kingly Pretenders)...

Notice how John's gospel use phrases like "and they took up stones to stone him...but he walked thorugh their midst...." as if some kind of ghost.

I prefer going with the socalled TWIN THEORY about all this surviving the stoning attempts---with the would be executioners being understandablly very angry at being duped again and again by this man (check out Mozart's masterpiece, Don Giovanni ACT II when Leporello is un-masked by the Don's would be execution staff !)

Just some ideas for you to toss around is all...!

www.infidels.org...

- An excellent essay that I would love someone to refute.




I worked out which one was which in the Last Supper. Some have said the 12 signs are representing the seasons, and I suggest, and have many days worth of research to show this, that they are representing the elements. That is, from left to right, Air, Earth, Fire, Water. But as the saying goes "As above, so below", it could be both. Da Vinci spent a long time on it so most probably put multiple meanings in.


www.Pharmacratic-Inquisition.com...

- Awesome presentation about the history, and story behind most of the world's deities and religious figureheads.

Sun's got the whole world in his hands, Sun's got the whole wide world in his hands

Originally posted by dbates
Ah yes! The swoon theory. I think if you examine the details of crucifixion you find that relaxing your legs, and pretending to be dead would kill you. That's why the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves on either side of Jesus. To quicken their death. Hanging from your arms with them spread out, compresses your chest cavity making it difficult to breath. You would only be able to hang in this manner for about 15 min. before your diaphragm would get too fatigued to function properly and you would die of asphyxiation.

We know that He hung on the cross for at least 30 min after his death making it impossible for Him to fake it for a few min. After he dies, Joseph walked back into town (maybe rode a donkey), and went to Pilate's court to ask for Jesus's body. Pilate sent for the centurion in charge to ask if he was really dead. The centurion probably went out and checked to make sure then had to go back to Pilate. Now Joseph could go back out of town to the cross, and claim Jesus' body with a note from Pilate. In reality this probably took at least an hour. That's a long time to pretend you're not breathing.

And they ran a lance through his side piercing a lung and probably his heart as well. Lastly, I highly doubt that the executioners that took him off the cross would overlook it if he was still breathing.

Did Jesus die to quickly on the cross? Was it quick considering that he was:
* beat up by the Jewish council
* flogged (Which was considered too cruel for a Roman citizen)
* beat with a cane
* Beaten by soldiers
* has thorns jammed onto his head. (You know how scalp woulds bleed)
* He has nails driven through his wrist and feet
* A soldier runs a lance through him

The soldiers escorted them to the tomb, and made sure he was in there. Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. If he had still been alive, how would he survive 3 days in a tomb with all those wounds, and massive blood loss? And then he overcomes a Roman guard, and walks away on feet that had spikes driven through them?

Most convincing is that fact that he convinced his disciples that he had risen and conquered the grave. Later, most of them were beaten and killed upholding their statements that he was risen. Why would these individuals do this unless they truly believed. There was nothing in it for them to lie up to the point of being killed for their statements. Nothing in it for them at all, unless Jesus did rise from the dead and showed them that he had conquered. Nothing less would have convinced them to act the way that they did.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by dbates]

All I can say is WOW! Thanks, I couldnt have said it any better m8.

Thanks