Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but they were never mainstream.
You don't know that for certain .. it is an assumption.
Naturally, if it wasn't a correct assumption, your whole faith would disintegrate :)

I assume the Qur'an is true .. the same for me.
However, I don't rely on any prophet mentioned in the Bible or Qur'an as being assumed divine.

It contradicts the shema. I know you claim that it doesn't .. but it most certainly does.

..without a lot of apologetics and manipulation of terms. that is.
 
I regard it as having absorbed information in good faith.

It's a fraud then, in your eyes. Muhammd, peace be with him, claimed it to be revealed to Him by God
through angel Gabriel, but you say "it was absorbed"
 
Hmm .. I don't know why you think it is so obvious .. it's not to me.
Muslims are most certainly prepared to die for their beliefs :)
This in reply to:
Of course being willing to die would have a lot to do with Christ's crucifixion
I thought it obvious anyone reading would understand my meaning as: Of course (early Christians in Rome while Peter and other apostles were still alive) being willing to die (for their Christian belief) would have a lot to do with Christ's crucifixion.

Does this clarify? Is it now more obvious to you? Or are we going back to using deliberate misunderstanding as a tool of serious debate?
 
Last edited:
This in reply to:
I thought it obvious anyone reading would understand my meaning as: Of course (early Christians in Rome while Peter and other apostles were still alive) being willing to die (for their Christian belief) would have a lot to do with Christ's crucifixion.

Does this clarify? Is it now more obvious to you?

No. I can't see what it has to do with it. Many people are prepared to die for their beliefs.
Why is belief in a ressurected Jesus so significant?
 
No. I can't see what it has to do with it. Many people are prepared to die for their beliefs.
Why is belief in a ressurected Jesus so significant?
They believed in Christ's death on the cross, within the lifetime of Jesus's closest followers who were still amongst them. They believed what those close apostles and disciples told them.

Not only they believed them, but were prepared to give their own precious lives in very cruel ways for their belief. They certainly believed the death of Jesus was something very special. Do they sound like gullible airheads to you?
 
They believed in Christ's death on the cross, within the lifetime of Jesus's closest followers who were still amongst them. They believed what those close apostles and disciples told them.

Not only they believed them, but were prepared to give their own precious lives in very cruel ways for their belief. They certainly believed the death of Jesus was something very special..

As I've already pointed out to Thomas, this is only an assumption.
You don't actually KNOW what they believed. It is part of your belief system that the early "Jewish" followers of Christ
believed in the great significance of a resurrection.

We know that they believed he is the Messiah .. there is no question about that.

You are saying that they definitely believed he was duvine and only a few Ebionites believed otherwise.
Very doubtful, imo.
 
.
You don't actually KNOW what they believed. It is part of your belief system that the early "Jewish" followers of Christ
believed in the great significance of a resurrection.

We know that they believed he is the Messiah .. there is no question about that.

You are saying that they definitely believed he was duvine and only a few Ebionites believed otherwise.
Very doubtful, imo.
I am saying that good evidence indicates they believed in the death on the cross, as recorded in the writings of Paul, while Peter and James and some of the close disciples and apostles who had known Jesus personally were still amongst them -- and also backed by a couple of independent Roman historians, linked earlier in my question to @Grandad about his thoughts about Tacitus, and the link to the full Wikipedia article
@Grandad
What are your thoughts on the passage by Tacitus?

Tacitus on Christ

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:

(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,
(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and
(iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea

... Paul Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip. Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.

... The next known reference to Christianity was written by Pliny the Younger, who was the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus during the reign of emperor Trajan. Around 111 AD, Pliny wrote a letter to emperor Trajan, requesting guidance on how to deal with suspected Christians who appeared before him in trials he was holding at that time. Tacitus' references to Nero's persecution of Christians in the Annals were written around 115 AD, a few years after Pliny's letter but also during the reign of emperor Trajan.

Another notable early author was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, who wrote the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD, during the reign of emperor Hadrian. In this work, Suetonius described why Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome by emperor Claudius, and also the persecution of Christians by Nero, who was the heir and successor of Claudius.

etc …
 
Last edited:
There is discussion about corruption of parts of the Pauline writings, but I do not think the death on the cross is part of that? It was accepted from the earliest time?

Lincoln said: You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

It's just entirely unreasonable to think Jesus's escape from death on the cross would not have leaked out? Amongst early followers? The whole thing would have just fizzled out. It's just a vanishingly unlikely conspiracy theory, imo
 
Last edited:
No. I'm sure you can come up with a verse or two to "prove" this, but I'm certain he did not proclaim himself to be God.
By the implication of His words, and deeds. The disciples believed it, and it was enough for the Council to accuse Him – by His own word – of blasphemy.
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Historicity of Jesus
The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain ...

Make of it what you will
 
On top of a hill, within view of the whole city, they drugged him with a wine soaked sponge to make him look dead, and then got him down with terrible injuries and patched him up and hid him away, until he ascended alive to heaven?

Why? To make the Quran be true?

But the Quran already states: 'they did not slay him, neither crucified him'

Who to believe?
 
Last edited:
By the implication of His words, and deeds. The disciples believed it, and it was enough for the Council to accuse Him – by His own word – of blasphemy.

No. Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy. Nor was any prophet of God.
God forbid .. what sort of example would that be :)

Yes .. I know .. you think that the Jews considered it blasphemy that Jesus claimed he was the son of God.

61 ..the high priest then asked Jesus: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am", at which point the high priest tore his own robe in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy.
-Mark 14

..except that that is not blasphemy. He is INDEED the son of God. That does not make him divine.
All prophets are sons of God.
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Historicity of Jesus
The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

I agree .. as does the Qur'an, imo.
It acknowledges that it seemed as though the Jews had got him successfully crucified.

As I've already stated .. the issue is more about Jesus' divinity and him "dying for sins"
That is why you are so madly intent on proving your case. Because your whole faith depends on it,
and you want to stay as you are. That's the impression that I have.
 
On top of a hill, within view of the whole city, they drugged him with a wine soaked sponge to make him look dead, and then got him down with terrible injuries and patched him up and hid him away, until he ascended alive to heaven?

Why? To make the Quran be true?

But the Quran already states: 'they did not slay him, neither crucified him'

Who to believe?

That is not why .. God knows why. I think that Pilate wanted to satisfy the Jewish authority, but did not want to have the blood of Jesus on his hands .. but I could be mistaken.

Whatever happened, it was decreed. I know you believe in miracles. Almighty God does what he wills.
He is able to inspire anybody he likes to do whatever he likes.

However, God does not do things without a reason.
Do you really expect to know / understand everything?
I shouldn't think so.

You simply don't want it to be true that Jesus did not die on the cross.
It's too inconvenient for you ;)
 
I agree .. as does the Qur'an, imo.
It acknowledges that it seemed as though the Jews had got him successfully crucified.
"They did not slay him neither did they crucify him."

Means: they did not slay him but they did crucify him?

Ok ...
 
Last edited:
"They did not slay him neither did they crucify him."

Means: they did not slay him but they did crucify him?

Ok ...

And for their saying, “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they did.

That's right.
There are a number of different scenarios.

"nor did they crucify him" could mean that he wasn't killed by that method, imo.
..or it could mean that God caused somebody else who was being crucified to appear to be Jesus.

It is easy for Allah. He is able to do all things.
Why would Allah do that?
..and why would Allah, the Most High, cause mankind to be so divided in their beliefs i.e. Muslims and Christians?
There are so many questions.. so many people ask "Why would such a loving-God let billions of people suffer with famine, disease and severed limbs and pain / madness etc.
..yet this is what is happening in the world.


It's mostly down to human beings. We oppress one another, and love wealth. and deny truth to obtain privilege.
Take ex-president Trump.. :(
 
Why would Allah say the exact opposite of what he means?

Billions of people are satisfied that He doesn't.
It's quite simple really .. you were raised as a Christian with empasis on Jesus' resurrection.
You therefore find it extremely hard to imagine God NOT being associated
with Jesus dying on a cross.

The Bible is not a book that is authored by God, yet the west more or less treat it as such.
It is not infallible, yet it contains historic documents of huge importance and significance.
The Qur'an mirrors the Bible in many ways, but as you don't like, or agree, or can't come to terms with many points,
you reject it.

You thereby reject its guidance.

i.e. you reject the law

1. Strict monotheism
2. dietary law
3. social and sexual law

..overall, you reject the importance of religious law in society.
Your religion thereby becomes a voluntary past-time, and society is becoming fragmented and in danger
of self-destruction through ignorance.
 
Billions of people are satisfied that He doesn't.
I'm not. The Quran states clearly they did not kill Jesus, nor did they crucify him. You say they did crucify Jesus? It's a bit confusing, you have to concede?
 
I mean, assuming Allah said what he meant: it is you who say they did crucify Jesus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top