Did Jesus actually die

[1213]

...You cannot really kill God. Jesus did not really die because he was resurrected. So my thinking is no harm no foul. Am I just thinking about this the wrong way? Again, you can't kill God. So did Jesus really die? ....

If Jesus would not have died, he could not have been resurrected. Also, Bible tells there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus and it was God who raised Jesus. That is why I think it is not Biblical to claim God died when Jesus died.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

...the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

I believe the body of Jesus died as the Bible tells.

 

[74x12]

Then it's not really a sacrifice.

According to you? If it gets the job done then it's a sacrifice more than enough for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to you? If it gets the job done then it's a sacrifice more than enough for me.

I don't see it that way.

Maybe pain and time out of the day. That's about it.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I apologize to Christians right off the bat. Please don't take this thread the wrong way. It is not my intention to be irreverent to you or your belief system. If you feel you might be insulted please click-away now and do not proceed reading any further.

If you are still here, hopefully, your faith is strong enough to survive a little self-inspection.

So recently I saw someone's avatar pic having a picture of Jesus and underneath it, it said, "If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."

This got me thinking. You cannot really kill God. Jesus did not really die because he was resurrected. So my thinking is no harm no foul. Am I just thinking about this the wrong way? Again, you can't kill God. So did Jesus really die? I don't think so.

Again, my apologies to Christians with weak faith who are insulted by my speculations.

Not at all! The average Christian will be first to tell you "Jesus lives!" But they will also tell you Jesus died on the cross. How to reconcile these two? Well, it's simple. Jesus came to Earth incarnate in human form. After death, Jesus kinda peeled off this outer layer to reveal the chewy nougat center inside.

 

[lukethethird]

Did Jesus actually die
Did Jesus actually live?

 

[MJFlores]

Did Jesus actually die
Did Jesus actually live?

Source: https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.

Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”

 

[exchemist]

I apologize to Christians right off the bat. Please don't take this thread the wrong way. It is not my intention to be irreverent to you or your belief system. If you feel you might be insulted please click-away now and do not proceed reading any further.

If you are still here, hopefully, your faith is strong enough to survive a little self-inspection.

So recently I saw someone's avatar pic having a picture of Jesus and underneath it, it said, "If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."

This got me thinking. You cannot really kill God. Jesus did not really die because he was resurrected. So my thinking is no harm no foul. Am I just thinking about this the wrong way? Again, you can't kill God. So did Jesus really die? I don't think so.

Again, my apologies to Christians with weak faith who are insulted by my speculations.

Aha but Jesus was also man, was he not? The Word was made flesh, and all that. When Christians say a person dies, they mean the body dies, fairly obviously.

P.S. The last line of your post seems needlessly obnoxious.

 

[Neuropteron]

I apologize to Christians right off the bat. Please don't take this thread the wrong way. It is not my intention to be irreverent to you or your belief system. If you feel you might be insulted please click-away now and do not proceed reading any further.

If you are still here, hopefully, your faith is strong enough to survive a little self-inspection.

So recently I saw someone's avatar pic having a picture of Jesus and underneath it, it said, "If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."

This got me thinking. You cannot really kill God. Jesus did not really die because he was resurrected. So my thinking is no harm no foul. Am I just thinking about this the wrong way? Again, you can't kill God. So did Jesus really die? I don't think so.

Again, my apologies to Christians with weak faith who are insulted by my speculations.

Indeed, what you say makes perfect sense. It would be preposterous to claim that God died.
However Jesus is not God, but God's son.

1John 4:9 "God sent his only-begotten son into the world so that we may gain life through him".

 

[MJFlores]

Aha but Jesus was also man, was he not? The Word was made flesh, and all that. When Christians say a person dies, they mean the body dies, fairly obviously.

P.S. The last line of your post seems needlessly obnoxious.

Jesus is a man.
He is not God.
If you are a man, you can't be God.

The God written in the Bible, is God and not man - as God said himself

Hosea 11:9 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
I will not execute the fierceness of my wrath: I will not return to destroy Ephraim: because I am God, and not man: the holy one in the midst of thee, and I will not enter into the city.

Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia

I'm sure this version of the Bible is very Catholic.
In the previous passage, God said that he is God and not a man.
So God is God and Man is Man.
Now to continue, does God want man to be a God?

Ezekiel 28:2 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord God: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am God, and I sit in the chair of God in the heart of the sea: whereas thou art a man, and not God: and hast set thy heart as if it were the heart of God.

Clearly God decreed that Man cannot be God.
He could think and have this feeling but Man is Man and cannot be God

Now when Jesus Christ came and walked the earth
Was he a man or was he a God?
The best resource person to answer this question is non other than Jesus Christ himself.

John 8:39-40 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.

Wasn't that clear?
Jesus said he is a man
If he is a man, then he is not God
Jesus also added that he is a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God
Again he differentiates that he is different from God
He heard the truth from God hence he was listening to God therefore he is not God

What do you think?
Who is lying here?
Did God lie? Did Jesus lie?
Or...

 

[exchemist]

Jesus is a man.
He is not God.
If you are a man, you can't be God.

The God written in the Bible, is God and not man - as God said himself

Hosea 11:9 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
I will not execute the fierceness of my wrath: I will not return to destroy Ephraim: because I am God, and not man: the holy one in the midst of thee, and I will not enter into the city.

View attachment 33331

Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia

I'm sure this version of the Bible is very Catholic.
In the previous passage, God said that he is God and not a man.
So God is God and Man is Man.
Now to continue, does God want man to be a God?

Ezekiel 28:2 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord God: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am God, and I sit in the chair of God in the heart of the sea: whereas thou art a man, and not God: and hast set thy heart as if it were the heart of God.

Clearly God decreed that Man cannot be God.
He could think and have this feeling but Man is Man and cannot be God

Now when Jesus Christ came and walked the earth
Was he a man or was he a God?
The best resource person to answer this question is non other than Jesus Christ himself.

John 8:39-40 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.

Wasn't that clear?
Jesus said he is a man
If he is a man, then he is not God
Jesus also added that he is a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God
Again he differentiates that he is different from God
He heard the truth from God hence he was listening to God therefore he is not God

What do you think?
Who is lying here?
Did God lie? Did Jesus lie?
Or...

You can look up Christian theology for yourself. I'm not jumping through these hoops for your amusement.

 

[MJFlores]

You can look up Christian theology for yourself. I'm not jumping through these hoops for your amusement.

Used to be Roman Catholic myself.
Got no choice as a baby, my parents were RC
Its not Christian theology it is Catholic
It all started in 325 AD in Nicaea

You don't know where Nicaea is?
It's in Turkey.

Not that turkey, this Turkey

So what happened?

You got a doctrine made by dead men approved by a dead pagan emperor and from a dead pagan empire.

But it definitely smells like some turkey

 

[Twilight Hue]

Source: https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.

Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”

Tactius was talking about early Christians and their belief in a Christ. Not Christ himself. It's not evidence of the existence of Christ other than that there were early Christians at the time who happened to believe in one.

 

[MJFlores]

Tactius was talking about early Christians and their belief in a Christ. Not Christ himself. It's not evidence of the existence of Christ other than that there were early Christians at the time who happened to believe in one.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians. Wikipedia
Born: 56 AD, Gallia Narbonensis
Died: 120 AD, Roman Empire
Full name: Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Genre: History, Silver Age of Latin

So during his time 56 AD to 120 AD, Jesus Christ was widely known
Now if Christ was a nobody, I bet Tacitus would never bothered mentioning him.
However Roman records show, he did exist.

 

[MJFlores]

Tactius was talking about early Christians and their belief in a Christ. Not Christ himself. It's not evidence of the existence of Christ other than that there were early Christians at the time who happened to believe in one.

Maybe we should revisit the article for clarification.

Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.

Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (/ˈtæsɪtəs/; Classical Latin: [ˈtakɪtʊs]; c.  56 – c.  120 AD) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians.[1][2] He lived in what has been called the Silver Age of Latin literature, and is known for the brevity and compactness of his Latin prose, as well as for his penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics.

The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors (69 AD). These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus, in 14 AD, to the years of the First Jewish–Roman War, in 70 AD. There are substantial lacunae in the surviving texts, including a gap in the Annals that is four books long.

Tacitus' other writings discuss oratory (in dialogue format, see Dialogus de oratoribus), Germania (in De origine et situ Germanorum), and the life of his father-in-law, Agricola, the general responsible for much of the Roman conquest of Britain, mainly focusing on his campaign in Britannia (De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae).

Tacitus - Wikipedia

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.[1]

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.[2] 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.[3][4]

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.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] 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.[9][10]

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I apologize to Christians right off the bat. Please don't take this thread the wrong way. It is not my intention to be irreverent to you or your belief system. If you feel you might be insulted please click-away now and do not proceed reading any further.

If you are still here, hopefully, your faith is strong enough to survive a little self-inspection.

So recently I saw someone's avatar pic having a picture of Jesus and underneath it, it said, "If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."

This got me thinking. You cannot really kill God. Jesus did not really die because he was resurrected. So my thinking is no harm no foul. Am I just thinking about this the wrong way? Again, you can't kill God. So did Jesus really die? I don't think so.

Again, my apologies to Christians with weak faith who are insulted by my speculations.

I get what you are saying. Allow me to offer my own view and elaborate.
I ask pretty much the same question (sort of), but go a step further.

Death could be viewed as a mere biological state, if one allows for "spirits" or "souls" that exist independently of a biological physical body.

So here we have this "super spirit" which is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerfull, etc. Obviously it is immortal as well. Jesus, is supposed to be the human body that was fashioned by this spirit for himself to inhabit. So for the sake of clarity, with "Jesus", I'll refer to the human biological body and with "God" to the spirit that inhabits said body.

It is said that Jesus/God "sacrificed" himself, by having himself tortured and killed. My question is: how is that a sacrifice?

To sacrifice something, means to give something up. Without getting it back. To loose something for the purpose of gaining something else which is better or a preferable outcome to the alternative.

So what exactly was sacrificed?

His life? Not really.... God is immortal.

His body? Owkay, that specific body might be damaged. Then again, god's all powerfull and all knowing. Repairing the body to brand new condition would be absolutely trivial. That, plus the fact that he, being all powerfull and all knowing, would be able to create a trillion identical bodies with a virtual snap of the fingers. Case in point, he didn't stay dead... he resurrected, wich - again - seems like a very trivial feat for a being of such supposed power.

Not only did he not stay dead, he returned to being the immortal all powerfull dictator and supreme judge of the universe. Or even the conceptual multi-verse.



The entire thing is just absurd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To just die and remain dead is not saving anyone.

To just die and not stay dead doesn't save anyone either.
The only effect it has is that the one who died didn't stay dead.

So, Jesus is supposed to be the firstborn from the dead. In other words the first to be raised.

Didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead before he himself resurrected?

And I understand a lot of people think it was "cheating" or something? I don't know. But, they're missing the point. The point of Jesus dying was not to punish Himself so that we could avoid punishment. Although that is part of it; that's not the main point here. The main point of Jesus dying was so that He could rise from the dead. The point of His death is ultimately to obtain power over death through the resurrection.

So, it was really about showing off....

Jesus is the Word of Life. By coming alive from the dead; He gives hope to all humanity that they may also live again even though they die. This is why Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the Life he that believes in me, though he were dead yet shall he live" (John 5:29)

Sure. What better way to get people to follow you other then to make them believe that death isn't the end.
This is why literally every religion ever, deals with "afterlife" to some form or another.

That's what religion is about, really.... human's attempt to cope with their own mortality. Or at least, with their knowledge thereof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the hadith, Jesus descends with his head dripping out of water, perhaps indicating that he was in a lake or aquarium, or perhaps because of a revival of Jesus that would be sprayed with water.

Perhaps he just spend some time in a Sayajin recovery pod

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.

No he didn't.
He reported on what certain people belonging to a new sect believed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians. Wikipedia

Which changes nothing about the fact that he's just reporting on what the new sect called "christians" believed.

So during his time 56 AD to 120 AD, Jesus Christ was widely known

No. What was known was this new sect called christians and what they believed. A lot of Romans would have known about it, because they were fodder for jokes and stuff. They knew about Christians and what they believed, just like they knew about Jews and what they believed.

Now if Christ was a nobody, I bet Tacitus would never bothered mentioning him.

He is reporting on the burning of Rome during Nero's time and how Nero blamed it on christians. He is then clarifying who christians are and what they believed and/or what identifies someone as a christian, and it is in that context that talks about Jesus. Not because he personally knows about Jesus, but because of that is what christians believe, and he is clarifying who christians are.

It would be like writing an article today involving scientologists and then mentioning Lord Xenu and immortal Thetans within that context, as a clarification of what scientology is all about.

This Tacitus passage can not at all be used as supportive evidence for a historical jesus.
All this passage shows is that christians existed (and the Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome - which is what the passage is REALLY all about).

However Roman records show, he did exist.

No. It shows that a christian sect existed.

 

[MJFlores]

Which changes nothing about the fact that he's just reporting on what the new sect called "christians" believed.



No. What was known was this new sect called christians and what they believed. A lot of Romans would have known about it, because they were fodder for jokes and stuff. They knew about Christians and what they believed, just like they knew about Jews and what they believed.



He is reporting on the burning of Rome during Nero's time and how Nero blamed it on christians. He is then clarifying who christians are and what they believed and/or what identifies someone as a christian, and it is in that context that talks about Jesus. Not because he personally knows about Jesus, but because of that is what christians believe, and he is clarifying who christians are.

It would be like writing an article today involving scientologists and then mentioning Lord Xenu and immortal Thetans within that context, as a clarification of what scientology is all about.

This Tacitus passage can not at all be used as supportive evidence for a historical jesus.
All this passage shows is that christians existed (and the Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome - which is what the passage is REALLY all about).



No. It shows that a christian sect existed.