Did Jesus really die?

AlienBuddha
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Well considering that the Roman soldier stabbed his kidney with a spear and saw He was already dead, I am going to say that yes, He was dead.

Was this anonymous Roman soldier also a respected medical examiner? If not, how can his word be taken for it? Furthermore, all we have is the word of some anonymous writer that this anonymous Roman soldier saw that he was dead. Sounds sketchy.

Well, as far as execution experts go, the mafia doesn't need a medical degree when they throw someone into the river wearing cement boots.

BTW, where is Jimmy Hoffa?

Execution experts don't usually need a medical degree.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'm not surprised you've never read the books. Depending on your zealotry, you might have been among the few who declared it to be a series unworthy of printing, full of Satanic rituals, devil worship, and pagan sacrilege. Given how it teaches the acceptance of death and the drawbacks of immortality, the pitfalls of zealotry and the trials of being caught between living to avenge and dying to protect. It's a much deeper and more intellectually stimulating adventure than the Bible. I wish J.K. Rowling could be given a chance ro revise that pile of rubbish.

Does it make you sad that I chose not to read it? You know, I am under no obligation to read it just because everyone else did. And really, does it have any more wizadry or other such stuff than most Grimm Fairy Tales, which I have read?

I think of Harry Potter as nothing more than just a fantasy story, much like Star Trek...(oh no, now the Trekkies are going to get me).

Oh my goodness, I am going to tell my brother this one, you know the one I always talk about who is Celtic Pagan. He's still alive, I haven't burned him at the stake yet.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Unfortunately, Danielsil18, Voldemort doesn't have a worldwide cult that worships him and has committed violence in his name for thousands of years.

I wouldn't say unfortunately.

But that's just my opinion.

WarminIndy


Well, as far as execution experts go, the mafia doesn't need a medical degree when they throw someone into the river wearing cement boots.

So, then you're answer is no, he was not a qualified medical examiner.

BTW, where is Jimmy Hoffa?

In Heaven with Jesus?

Execution experts don't usually need a medical degree.

You are continuing to ignore that this alleged incident is written by an anonymous source about an anonymous Roman guard. You are taking the the word of two anonymous sources, one of whom wrote it as pure hearsay. Does that qualify as credible to you? So, if I tell you that a guy I know who shall remain unnamed told me that an alien came into his bedroom last night, you'd believe that? Because that's the same exact thing.

AlienBuddha

WarminIndy


Well, as far as execution experts go, the mafia doesn't need a medical degree when they throw someone into the river wearing cement boots.

So, then you're answer is no, he was not a qualified medical examiner.

Are you serious? Who in the First Century was a "qualified medical examiner"? No one, that's who.

So, by extension, do you also believe that no one in the First Century died, since there was no one to certify their deaths?

It's times like this that I miss the ::eye roll:: emoticon.

Roman soldiers who didn't know the difference between dead and not-dead probably would have a pretty short life span, and as far as those qualified to say "He's dead, Jim", a professional killer like a soldier would probably be the best candidate.

Well, the story of the Bible has it that he died on the cross and resurrected.

In my mind it is literal and a metaphor as to what happens with each and every one of us. We die, and on the third day we rise to the after life.

Some say he went on to live a good life, was married and so forth. Who knows? I don't.

Supposedly, we do not have his body. Where did it go? It's a mystery.

ETA: If Jesus could walk on water and heal the sick and blind then could he have not faked his own death?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Does it make you sad that I chose not to read it? You know, I am under no obligation to read it just because everyone else did. And really, does it have any more wizadry or other such stuff than most Grimm Fairy Tales, which I have read?

No, no, and no.

I think of Harry Potter as nothing more than just a fantasy story, much like Star Trek...(oh no, now the Trekkies are going to get me).

I think it depends.

Oh my goodness, I am going to tell my brother this one, you know the one I always talk about who is Celtic Pagan. He's still alive, I haven't burned him at the stake yet.

Go ahead. I'm sure he's met some who would love to, so he'll laugh about it.

adjensen

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Tacticus was referring to a different group of trouble makers, who followed the ancient myth of "Chrestus". Christians in those days were called "Nazorenes" and didn't adopt the title of Christian until much later. Also, there was no huge movement of trouble making Christians in Rome at the time Tacticus is referring to.

What? Where do you get your supposed facts from?

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (Source)

Tacticus seems to have the basic facts of Christianity down there, and he doesn't refer to any "huge movement" in Rome.

It seems clear that the Roman historian Suetoneus (Claudius 25.4) did write, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”


It was recently discovered that Christian Scribes had Changed Chrestians to Christians in Tacitus' "History"

Unlike the Testimonium of Josephus or the Nero- blamed-Christians-for-the-fire statement of Tacitus, there appears to be no reason to suspect any interpolation in Suetonius.

Recently it was discovered that the earlier manuscript of Tacitus had Chrestians in the passage and it was changed to Christians by a later scribe. It seems obvious that a Christian scribe could not have made the mistake of writing Chrestians (Chrestianos) for Christians, so we must take it that Tacitus’ passage was probably authentic, but it has been interpolated. If Tacitus wrote Chrestians, then it is quite likely that he also wrote Chrest for Christ. The passage makes little sense as now recorded in wikipedia:
jayraskin.wordpress.com...

James D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation.[18] R.T. France says that the notion of a misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake."[19] The term Chrestus (which may have also been used by Tacitus) was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.
en.wikipedia.org...

"Christ" was a Greek concept long before Jesus ever was born. Neophites of the many mysteries religions were called "Christians"or "Chrestians." It's easy to how this could mistaken as a "Christian" movement, even though it pre-dated Jesus, and easy to see why Christian apologetics jump on the confustion and cite it as proof.

Christians were first called "Christians" at Antioch, according to Acts 11, not "much later", and they were, prior to that, known as "The Way", not "Nazorenes" (sic).

Acts 24
24 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

2 And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,

3 We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

4 Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.

5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

reply to post by windword


Here is the correct answer.

First, the word Sabath in most versions of John 20 is actually Sabaths. If you check the International Standard Version, they have it correct. Also here in the Youngs Literal Translation.

John 20

20 And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, 2 she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'

Second, He was crucified on Wednesday and not later in the week.

SOURCE

Several computer software programs exist that enable us to calculate when the Passover and God's other festivals fall in any given year. Those programs show that in A.D. 31, the year of these events, the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night and Wednesday sundown marked the beginning of the "high day," the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jesus, then, was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday afternoon, not on Friday.

reply to post by windword


Whether or not someone confused the word Chrestian with Christian, it still does not explain that Tacitus explicitly states the movement, which he called evil, began in Judea then went to Rome. Unless this Chrestian was in Judea, then this theory is unlikely.

The term Nazarane is from a Jewish observant-Christian group. So why did they make such a fuss about it then? Paul had been a Pharisee, a strict law keeper. When he converted he was no longer a Pharisee, and this led to some hurt feelings back then. Paul didn't require the keeping of all the law any more, because he was dealing with people who were not all Jewish converts. You have to remember he preached in Greece and Asia Minor.

The name Nazaraios is the standard Greek spelling in the New Testament for a man from Nazareth; the plural Nazaraioi means "men from Nazareth" The title Nazarenes, "men from Nazareth," is first applied to the Christians by Tertullus (Acts 24:5), though Herod Agrippa II (Acts 26:28) uses the term "Christians" which had first been used at Antioch (Acts 11:26). The name used by Tertullus survives into Rabbinical and modern Hebrew as notzrim (נוצרים) a standard Hebrew term for "Christian"

According to Epiphanius in his Panarion, the 4th-century Nazarenes were originally Jewish converts of the Apostles who fled Jerusalem because of Jesus' prophecy on its coming siege (during the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD). They fled to Pella, Peraea (northeast of Jerusalem), and eventually spread outwards to Beroea and Bashanitis, where they permanently settled (Panarion 29.3.3). The Nazarenes were similar to the Ebionites, in that they considered themselves Jews, maintained an adherence to the Law of Moses, and used only the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, rejecting all the Canonical gospels. However, unlike half of the Ebionites, they accepted the Virgin Birth.

Notzrim is the Hebrew word the Jews used. But Tacitus was not Greek, he was not Jewish, he was Roman and used the word Herod Agrippa also used. Remember that Israel was a vassal state in the Roman Empire, and that Herod Agrippa was a puppet leader placed there by Rome, their correspondence was from the Roman perspective.

It clearly associates Jesus as being from Nazareth, He was a Nazaraois meaning "man from Nazareth". So His followers followed the Nazaraois. The etymology suggests that the word itself means simply a person from this particular place, but then when there were more followers, the word began to be applied more broadly.

That's kind of like calling Star Trek fans Trekkies. They weren't on the show, but they follow it. Now our lexicon supports this group of people that everyone knows when they see them in costume and speaking Vulcan.

windword

adjensen
What? Where do you get your supposed facts from?

jayraskin.wordpress.com...

Oh, that's where you get your supposed facts from. Christ mythicist Jay Raskin. Colour me surprised.

Unfortunately, what he says there makes no sense, as the same manuscript clearly uses the name Christus, not Chrestus, in the next sentence, making "Chrestians" a suspicious word, because it would not be rooted from "Christus".

For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the ultraviolet photograph. (Source)

adjensen


Are you serious? Who in the First Century was a "qualified medical examiner"? No one, that's who.

Of course I am serious! WarminIndy is trying to claim that the unnamed Roman soldier who allegedly stabbed Jesus in the side with a spear is a valid authority on whether he died or not.

So, by extension, do you also believe that no one in the First Century died, since there was no one to certify their deaths?

Strawman fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum.

It's times like this that I miss the ::eye roll:: emoticon.

I agree.

Roman soldiers who didn't know the difference between dead and not-dead probably would have a pretty short life span,

And I'm sure you're an authority on that lol. That being said, this sounds like nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if they were "good" at knowing the difference, that doesn't mean that they were always right.

and as far as those qualified to say "He's dead, Jim", a professional killer like a soldier would probably be the best candidate.

And they could easily be wrong. I'm sure it happened. No one's perfect. So my point stands. The Roman soldier could have been wrong and Jesus could have merely fainted/passed out, went into hypovolemic shock and fell into a coma.

reply to post by AlienBuddha


Running with that argument, it is a POINTLESS argument. No one can prove to you that Jesus actually died, and you can't prove to anyone that he didn't.

It is, quite honestly, a futile struggle. No one will know for sure. No one can know for sure.

reply to post by adjensen


I doesn't matter, Adj. The concept of "Christ" is old, older that Jesus by a long shot. People, of all kinds, were called "Christians" and other derivations of Christ. Christians were not unique to Jesus, as in his followers, until much later.

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:

All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before. This appears from the accusation against Paul…

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff noted:

A portion of the Jewish Christians, however, adhered even after the destruction of Jerusalem, to the national customs of their fathers, and propagated themselves in some churches of Syria down to the end of the fourth century, under the name of Nazarenes; a name perhaps originally given in contempt by the Jews to all Christians as followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
www.cogwriter.com...

reply to post by WarminIndy

Jesus clearly states that one is exempt from judgment when one believes in him.
When Xtrians say that no scholar refutes the existence of Jesus they are lying.
The Christogram "Chi Ro" is actually the "Julian Star" that Constantine used.
This symbol is actually Caesar's comet.44 B.C.E. comet in the sky during Divus
Iulius Christos's funeral games.Julius Caesar was a Christos to his celestial
mother the Goddess Venus (God of love).Christos is a title (anointed with oil).

When Xtrians say that no scholar refutes the existence of Jesus they are lying.
The Christogram "Chi Ro" is actually the "Julian Star" that Constantine used.
This symbol is actually Caesar's comet.44 B.C.E. comet in the sky during Divus
Iulius Christos's funeral games.Julius Caesar was a Christos to his celestial
mother the Goddess Venus (God of love).Christos is a title (anointed with oil).
www.youtube.com...

Christos/Chrestus worship was widespread through the Roman kingdom, pre-Jesus, of which Judea was a part.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I know, Afterinfinity. I'm merely posing a question/presenting an alternate theory, one that I've never heard before. I really don't see what the big deal is and why everyone's getting so up in arms about it lol

I think it's interesting that people that don't believe or care whether Yahoshua lived or died have wild nonsensical speculations about how he didn't really die and/or believe some other implausible story.If it doesn't matter because it's all "fictional BS" why bother with speculations that are so far off base from reality they are more absurd than anything they think is in the bible.

That a man could be scourged then crucified and live is so far fetched that anyone even entertaining the thought has lost all credibility as a reasonable thinker.I completely understand why and how people don't believe in Jesus but believing that a man could survive the ordeal recorded in the scriptures is unfathomable.Many.many people have died daily for millenniums of far,far less trauma.

Christianity will defend his death to the death because many of their doctrines are extrapolated from it.It sure looks like God has made very little attempt to make it undeniable to believe... just like about everything else in life.I guarantee NO one can even prove beyond a doubt that they exist! That's how tenable everything is.To try to "prove Yahoshuas death one way or the other is futility.It doesn't accomplish anything except strong evidence to some folks credibility and motives for believing things.

The fact is most Christian don't even think he was dead.They think he died THEN was "alive" in "spirit" then went to "hell" and freed some people held captive there then after 3 days (that are really barely 2 days by any counting method) "rose" into his once "dead" physical body wound holes and all...and all sort of other mystical stuff with millions of variations most of which is dependent on what they were taught and believe.

The fact is most Christians belief of the death and resurrection are just as far fetched as those that don't believe he lived or died or revived.Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me.

If anyone is interested in the truth of Yahoshua.. here it is...He was alive, then he died being crucified.He was deader than dead.The dead are busy being dead because that's what dead people who are dead do.They don't fake their death with a stand in patsy or revive in the cool of a cave and run off and have kids with one of their friends or traipse through hell or any of those other dungeons and dragons fantasies about nothing.

As for the resurrection....that happened also.Not in any of the ways believed by religion.Again...the fact is...it is impossible to believe.It can only be known...and then there is no argument about any of it.

reply to post by windword


None of that matters when Tacitus explicitly names Pontius Pilatus as the procurator who had "Christus" executed. You are muddying the waters here.

reply to post by Rex282


Wait a minute, it's more implausible to believe that he passed out from the pain and slipped into a coma due to hypovolemic shock - a natural occurrence, by the way - than it is to believe that he died and resurrected from the grave 3 days later?

Also, the reason why some of us debate this even though they don't believe in Jesus is because of the worldwide following that Jesus has and the atrocities that are still committed in his name to this day.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by Rex282

 

Wait a minute, it's more implausible to believe that he passed out from the pain and slipped into a coma due to hypovolemic shock - a natural occurrence, by the way - than it is to believe that he died and resurrected from the grave 3 days later?

You are aware that the Bible is about an all powerful God who is able to resurrect people from the dead, right? I mean, that's kind of front and centre to the whole thing.

Given the basis of the text, yes, it is far more plausible that Jesus was resurrected after being dead for three days than it is for him to have slipped into a coma after being scourged and crucified, been tossed into a cave without any medical care, and later just "came out of it", well enough to move a large stone and go track down his followers.

If it was as simple as you make it out to be, we should have dozens of stories of people being resurrected after being crucified, yet we only have the one.