Jesus and the Crucifixion - Continued from Another Thread.

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
It seems you are very intolerant of other people's views..

That is how it seems to me .. it all seems to revolve around death and resurrection .. and Unitarian Christians see it in the same light..

  • No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.
  • The vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction theories of the Atonement are invalid because they malign God's character and veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ.
[ According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, atonement in Christian theology is "man's reconciliation with God through the sacrificial death of Christ." ]
I am entirely tolerant of other views, as long as they don't continually proselytize at me and trivialize my own views as gibberish and so on, ignoring my responses and just repeating the same stuck record at me. Anyway, Unitarians believe Jesus died on the cross, as far as I know.

@muhammad_isa
What is your real reason for insisting Jesus did not die on the cross -- regardless of any resurrection?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
@muhammad_isa
It's not logical to believe Jesus survived the cross. There's nothing logical about it. Logic is not a valid motivation, imo?

It's fine if a person believes Jesus did not die on the cross. Problem would be when a person can't stay away from telling me my own beliefs are illogical, meaningless and invalid

So please go ahead and take the floor ... if possible without demeaning my own or anyone else's beliefs and ignoring all the previous explanations requiring them to be repeated yet again here ...

And I will try to stay quiet, lol
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
What is the necessity to prove Jesus did not die on the cross?
Only prejudging folks try to prove a particular outcome.
An investigation just leads where any evidence exists, and where there is no direct or primary evidence then all one can do is consider what circumstantial evidence thte might be, which can only lead to beliefs.
So nothing can be proved at all.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
knew a devotee of a 1980'ies incarnation claimant of Babaji (Haidakhan Babaji) who lived in the Kashmere region.
How about this one?

 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
Yes. That's the reason, imo. To explain any appearance by Jesus after the crucifixion, complicated theories need to be constructed around he did not die on the cross.
No great complication is needed to construe that Jesus did not die after a few hours on a cross.
Any more than complications surrounding a resurrection .
I wonder what % of impartial jurors would vote for a living Jesus being seen again as opposed to a resurrected Jesus being seen again?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
Light (nature) is the shadow of God (Spirit) imo ...
Bingo! My perception of Deism is just that, Nature being the resident power here and the whole of everything (God) leaving all to Nature's domination ....
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
No great complication is needed to construe that Jesus did not die after a few hours on a cross.
It's very complicated IMO -- whichever way you look at it. Above all it's completely unecessary. Why?
Any more than complications surrounding a resurrection .
Well, this is a separate issue under the circumstances, that creates the reason for devising a complicated conspiracy around saving Jesus from death on the cross.

The reason to reject the death, is to avoid having to deal with the resurrection?
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Jesus in all the gospels tells his followers he is going to die on the cross. So how do we get around to rejecting these statements? He didn't say that? Or he didn't know what he was talking about? Or he didn't mean that? Or he meant the opposite of what he said? He only said the things we want him to have said? In order to support our theory -- whatever theory that happens to be?
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
702
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
It's fine if a person believes Jesus did not die on the cross..
You aren't paying attention..
I said that it is all the hype around the death and resurrection that I object to.

Whether he died or not means little to me.
I believe that he is not really dead .. just like everybody else who has passed away.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
It's very complicated IMO -- whichever way you look at it. Above all it's completely unecessary. Why?
Well, this is a separate issue under the circumstances, that creates the reason for devising a complicated conspiracy around saving Jesus from death on the cross.

The reason to reject the death, is to avoid having to deal with the resurrection?
No.
To follow a path of research and study dies not begin with an expected outcome.

It's not necessary to deal with a resurrection if one doesn't find a resurrection.

I did not find that a resurrection occured when reading the original gospel of Mark, and the other gospels were not written by witnesses imo so their reports didn't impress me about a resurrection.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
Jesus in all the gospels tells his followers he is going to die on the cross. So how do we get around to rejecting these statements? He didn't say that? Or he didn't know what he was talking about? Or he didn't mean that? Or he meant the opposite of what he said? He only said the things we want him to have said? In order to support our theory -- whatever theory that happens to be?
I know that I did not start with any preconceived theory.....I took a journey of study and arrived where I did.

Where did Jesus say that he would be resurrected in G-Mark?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
No.
To follow a path of research and study dies not begin with an expected outcome.

It's not necessary to deal with a resurrection if one doesn't find a resurrection.

I did not find that a resurrection occured when reading the original gospel of Mark, and the other gospels were not written by witnesses imo so their reports didn't impress me about a resurrection.
Well original Mark does involve a resurrection. But regardless -- are you saying even in the event of no mention of resurrection in any gospel or other part of the New Testament that you would consider Jesus's survival more likely than his death on the cross?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Where did Jesus say that he would be resurrected in G-Mark?
I'm home relaxing with a drink after work. I will bring up the passages for you tomorrow.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,167
Reaction score
2,657
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Some Unity/Gilmore persective

Metaphysical meaning of crucifixion (rw)

Metaphysical meaning of crucifixion (rw)
crucifixion--The crossing out in consciousness of errors that have become fixed states of mind; the surrender or death of the whole personality in order that the Christ Mind may be expressed in all its fullness.

The crucifixion of Jesus represents the wiping of personality out of consciousness. We deny the human self so that we may unite with the selfless. We give up the mortal so that we may attain the immortal. We dissolve the thought of the physical body so that we may realize the spiritual body.

https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/resurrection

https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/jesus
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Messages
703
Reaction score
537
Points
88
Location
United States
It's very complicated IMO -- whichever way you look at it. Above all it's completely unecessary. Why?

I think terms like "complex" and "complicated" are vague and can ambiguously refer to many things. They tend to be subjective.

As for unnecessary, I agree. As far as I'm aware, the evidence we have of a post-crucifixion Jesus comes from the written testimonies of Peter and Paul since these are the only primary sources of the event.

All of the archaeological evidence that I have found of a post-crucifixion Jesus, such as finding the empty tomb or the burial shroud, have turned out to be hoaxes.

I do not know of any well-documented cases of resurrection in the modern age. The closest we have to documented cases of resurrection are people who were quickly resuscitated from "cardiac death" and some cases where people have been brought back from "cerebral death" in just a few hours. I am unaware of any case of someone coming back from death after 3 days and current neuroscience seems to indicate that this would likely require extremely advanced technology, assuming it was possible at all.

In other words, people do not come back from the dead. It just doesn't happen. If anyone were to claim that it happened, the most logical response would be to recognize that such a claim is almost certainly false but be open to evidence that might make it more likely.

All we have are written claims, though. Now, eyewitness testimony can be used as evidence but it is highly unreliable evidence because we know eyewitness accounts are wrong all the time. This is made worse by the faults in human memory. Memories tend to corrupt over time.

So which is more likely, that two eyewitness accounts given years after a supposed event are wrong or that somebody came back from being dead for 3 days?

Personally, I have no need to come up with reasonable explanations for why Jesus was seen after he died since I am almost certain that he was not seen after he died. It is possible that he did not die on the cross and was mistakenly thought to be dead, however, which still seems to me to be a more logical explanation than resurrection.
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Messages
703
Reaction score
537
Points
88
Location
United States
Some Unity/Gilmore persective

Metaphysical meaning of crucifixion (rw)

Metaphysical meaning of crucifixion (rw)
crucifixion--The crossing out in consciousness of errors that have become fixed states of mind; the surrender or death of the whole personality in order that the Christ Mind may be expressed in all its fullness.

The crucifixion of Jesus represents the wiping of personality out of consciousness. We deny the human self so that we may unite with the selfless. We give up the mortal so that we may attain the immortal. We dissolve the thought of the physical body so that we may realize the spiritual body.

https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/resurrection

https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/jesus

I think this has helped me understand the concept of "Christ Consciousness" now.

If I am correct, then, "Christ Consciousness" refers to a state of mind of complete selflessness and the willingness to sacrifice one's individual identity and endure personal suffering for the sake of others.
 
Top