Did Jesus actually die

[MJFlores]

The quran says he didn't die and thus didn't need to be resurected.

Oh the Quran......

Even if the Book of Mormon says he didn't die, we know which is which
Even if the Tibetan Book of the Dead says he didn't die, we can set apart what to believe and what not
The salvation of man depends on what you believe about Jesus Christ

Romans 10:9 New International Version (NIV)
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

What religion can pass this requisites of the verse mentioned above?
Catholics? Protestant? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhist? Pagans? Atheists?

You don't believe Jesus died?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh the Quran......

Even if the Book of Mormon says he didn't die, we know which is which
Even if the Tibetan Book of the Dead says he didn't die, we can set apart what to believe and what not
The salvation of man depends on what you believe about Jesus Christ

Romans 10:9 New International Version (NIV)
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

What religion can pass this requisites of the verse mentioned above?
Catholics? Protestant? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhist? Pagans? Atheists?

You don't believe Jesus died?

Evaluating other religions while having bible goggles on, is fallacious since it operates from an assumed conclusion.

You haven't given a single valid reason why we should care about what your bible says as opposed to what, for example, the quran says.

Your "evidence" of your bible seems to amount to nothing more or less then "I believe it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See?
I named the historians, you named none.

I don't need to name historians, because the bruden of proof lies with you.
And the historians you named, don't support your case at all, as I explained multiple times now.

Ignoring your mistakes will not make them go away.

I mentioned their work, you just cajoled

I'm aware of their work and was aware of their work long before you brought it up.
I explained, at length, multiple times, how your interpretation of their work is wrong.
You have yet to address this point. I have given up on hoping that you will.

You don't actually care that your beliefs are justified. You just hold them because you like them.

and geeezzz should I expect a good reply?

You should expect the same reply you've already been given: explanations of how your argument is flawed.
And you'll just continue to ignore it.

 

[iam1me]

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.

There are definitely some issues for those Christians that try to say that Jesus was God. For instance, scripture says God cannot be tempted. If Jesus were God, then the whole scene in the bible where Jesus confronts the devil is a sham - he would be incapable of succumbing in the first place.

But Christians like myself view Jesus for who he stated to be: the Son of God, not God himself. So not really an issue for me.

As for the idea that he didn't "really" die because he was subsequently resurrected, that logic does not follow. In the first place, his death wasn't some quick blow to the head or the like - it was a long and cruel death on the cross (after being severely beaten and whipped). Being revived doesn't negate that sacrifice, to willingly undergo such an ordeal for the sake of others. As testament to the psychological ordeal of submitting himself to such a thing - he is recorded as having sweat blood: Hematidrosis (Sweating Blood): Causes and Treatment

Furthermore, Christ's sacrifice wasn't simply going through with the crucifixion, but of living a life perfectly in accordance with God's will. Never sinning, always doing what is right, always giving everything to God - to the point of death, and overcoming the temptations that we are all familiar with. It was this perseverance to the bitter end that was his holy sacrifice to God, and the example of what we are called to follow.

And it is because of not just his death, but also because of how he lived his life, that he was subsequently raised up and exalted over all but God himself.

 

[MJFlores]

I don't need to name historians, because the bruden of proof lies with you.
And the historians you named, don't support your case at all, as I explained multiple times now.

Ignoring your mistakes will not make them go away.



I'm aware of their work and was aware of their work long before you brought it up.
I explained, at length, multiple times, how your interpretation of their work is wrong.
You have yet to address this point. I have given up on hoping that you will.

You don't actually care that your beliefs are justified. You just hold them because you like them.



You should expect the same reply you've already been given: explanations of how your argument is flawed.
And you'll just continue to ignore it.

I never considered for a moment that I am a prosecutor in a court case
Where the burden of proof lies in the prosecution.
The OT is
Did Jesus actually die
died from what?
What is the cause of death [COD]?
Who confirmed the death if there was no autopsy?
Where was the victim last seen?
Who killed the victim?

We shouldn't wander off the OT to
Did Jesus actually live
Because we have a murder investigation at hand
That would be moot and academic
since the case is
Did Jesus actually die

The historians who are atheist or pagan
have recorded that they confirmed the existence of Jesus
and recorded their observations in their work
Nobody objected or questioned their work
Hence it is considered a verified history
And when you have a verified history this bolster
the authenticity of the Bible

The mere existence could be traced from the people Jesus communicated with.
You have the apostles, relatives and followers of Jesus Christ.
Let us take the example of Paul, apostle of Christ

Question:
Is there historical evidence that the apostle Paul was a real person?

Answer:
As far as I know there is not a single reputable scholar, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, skeptics or anyone from any background who is a historian or scholar who doubts that Paul was a real person.

SOURCE: Is there any historical evidence that Paul was a real person? | Evidence for Christianity
Posted on February 2, 2015 by John Oakes

Based on the construction of facts: Saul [later named Paul the apostle] heard the voice of Jesus Christ on his way to Damascus to persecute the early Church of Christ [the followers of Jesus Christ and the rest of the apostles]

Question:

Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus was real?

Answer:

A number of non-Christian historical sources mention Jesus of Nazareth, from as early as the late first century AD. This includes Jewish historian Josephus, the Jewish OT commentary known as the Talmud, and Roman historians, especially Tacitus and Seutonius. These writers mention his name, how he died and the fact that many claimed he worked miracles and was raised from the dead. Then there were the dozens of early church writers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius who personally knew people who knew Jesus and who told them first hand stories about Jesus of Nazareth. Ignatius actually knew the apostle John. It is literally impossible to claim that Jesus was not a real person unless one is simply ignorant of the facts or one chooses blatantly to ignore the hard evidence of history. Some have said that we know as much or more about Jesus of Nazareth as we do any other ancient figure. I think this is a bit of an overstatement, but that people say this illustrates the point. Whether or not every event recorded in the gospels actually happened is something a reasonable person can debate, but to claim that he never lived is simply not supportable.

For specifics, references and direct quotes from Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus and others see my book Reasons for Belief (www.ipibooks.com), especially chapters 1-3. Also, doing a word search at my web site will give you several references to the things these writers said about Jesus.

John Oakes, PhD

Now if you want to grill the guy, maybe you should meet up with him in San Diego Calif
If not then

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never considered for a moment that I am a prosecutor in a court case
Where the burden of proof lies in the prosecution.

The burden of proof has nothing to do with courtrooms and everything with rational reasoning.

The historians who are atheist or pagan
have recorded that they confirmed the existence of Jesus

No. They recorded the claims of people who claimed that.
All their writing confirms, is that they were aware of people (christians) who believed that.

and recorded their observations in their work

That observation being "christians exist and they worship some jew named Jesus who Pilates apparantly crucified"

Nobody objected or questioned their work

Because they were aware of the existance of the sect called christianity which centered around that belief.

Hence it is considered a verified history

The only thing it verifies, is that christians existed and that they were aware of them when they wrote what they wrote.

And when you have a verified history this bolster
the authenticity of the Bible

That christians existed at that time, in no way bolsters authenticity of the bible.

The mere existence could be traced from the people Jesus communicated with.
You have the apostles, relatives and followers of Jesus Christ.
Let us take the example of Paul, apostle of Christ

I've already acknowledged that I have no problem with assuming that a historical jesus existed around which these stories were centered.

I'm merely pointing out that the things you point to as evidence of that, aren't actually evidence of that.

Question:
Is there historical evidence that the apostle Paul was a real person?

Answer:
As far as I know there is not a single reputable scholar, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, skeptics or anyone from any background who is a historian or scholar who doubts that Paul was a real person.

This isn't about Paul.

Question:

Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus was real?

Answer:

No.

A number of non-Christian historical sources mention Jesus of Nazareth, from as early as the late first century AD. This includes Jewish historian Josephus, the Jewish OT commentary known as the Talmud, and Roman historians, especially Tacitus and Seutonius.

None of these are contemporary / independend.
As explained.

These writers mention his name, how he died and the fact that many claimed he worked miracles and was raised from the dead.

Which they learned about....from christians.

 

[MJFlores]

Evaluating other religions while having bible goggles on, is fallacious since it operates from an assumed conclusion.

You haven't given a single valid reason why we should care about what your bible says as opposed to what, for example, the quran says.

Your "evidence" of your bible seems to amount to nothing more or less then "I believe it".

When examining the authenticity, reliability and sacredness of a sacred book, one must check:
a] the authors or writers of the book
b] the time frame or the era when it was made
c] other circumstances of how the book was developed

If you don't believe the Bible, that is your preference
If you believe the Quran better, no problemo amigo
If you believe that when you die, you won't be resurrected on Judgement Day - I am pretty sure I know why
But there is an adage, we use to speak of

 

[MJFlores]

The burden of proof has nothing to do with courtrooms and everything with rational reasoning.



No. They recorded the claims of people who claimed that.
All their writing confirms, is that they were aware of people (christians) who believed that.



That observation being "christians exist and they worship some jew named Jesus who Pilates apparantly crucified"



Because they were aware of the existance of the sect called christianity which centered around that belief.



The only thing it verifies, is that christians existed and that they were aware of them when they wrote what they wrote.



That christians existed at that time, in no way bolsters authenticity of the bible.



I've already acknowledged that I have no problem with assuming that a historical jesus existed around which these stories were centered.

I'm merely pointing out that the things you point to as evidence of that, aren't actually evidence of that.



This isn't about Paul.




No.



None of these are contemporary / independend.
As explained.




Which they learned about....from christians.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, do you have like a libary of gifs that you grab links from when you don't feel like typing, or...?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When examining the authenticity, reliability and sacredness of a sacred book, one must check:
a] the authors or writers of the book
b] the time frame or the era when it was made
c] other circumstances of how the book was developed

That's all?
It's kind of funny because those are actually things that I find the least interesting.
I'm more concerned with what it actually says and how the contents relate to the actual world.

I don't care about who wrote it when and for what reason. What I care about is what it actually says and how it can be verified.

If you don't believe the Bible, that is your preference

No, my beliefs are not a matter of preference. My beliefs are a matter of compulsion. Compulsion of what convinces me. I don't "choose" not the believe in your god or religion, just like I don't "choose" not to believe in santa claus.

Calling my disbelief a "choice" implies that belief itself is just another "choice".
So, could you choose right here, right now, to really and genuinly believe in santa claus?
I'm guess you can't. That demonstrates to you that belief is not really a choice.
If it were, you COULD just choose to genuinly believe in santa claus.

So, now that you have learned this, you should ask yourself: then what IS belief, if not a choice? How does one come to a belief?

If you believe that when you die, you won't be resurrected on Judgement Day - I am pretty sure I know why

And if you don't believe in Santa when dec 24th comes around, he won't be getting you presents. I'm pretty sure you know why.

But there is an adage, we use to speak of

You can't scare me with a story that I don't even consider believable.

 

[MJFlores]

So, do you have like a libary of gifs that you grab links from when you don't feel like typing, or...?

 

[Katzpur]

Even if the Book of Mormon says he didn't die...

So are you purposely or accidentally clueless? Where on earth did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon says He didn't die? You obviously haven't read it, but you didn't even pick up that little "alternative fact" from some anti-Mormon website. You came up with that one all by yourself. And it's stupid.

 

[viole]

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.

Of course He didn’t. He just took the weekend off. And He said that from the beginning. His so-called death for our sins, was nothing more than a planned self induced, and time limited, coma.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MJFlores]

So are you purposely or accidentally clueless? Where on earth did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon says He didn't die? You obviously haven't read it, but you didn't even pick up that little "alternative fact" from some anti-Mormon website. You came up with that one all by yourself. And it's stupid.

 

[Clear]

Even if the Book of Mormon says he didn't die, we know which is which... (post #61)

In response to this incredibly strange and inaccurate claim, @Katzpur replied :

So are you purposely or accidentally clueless? Where on earth did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon says He didn't die? You obviously haven't read it, but you didn't even pick up that little "alternative fact" from some anti-Mormon website. You came up with that one all by yourself. And it's stupid. (post #72)

@Katzpur;

I very much agree with your comment on MJFlores ignorant claim. The main testimony of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind as an integral part of accomplishing the atonement. For MJFlores to claim that the "...the Book of Mormon says he didn't die..." (post #61) was either a purposeful attempt to misrepresent or incredible ignorance on the part of MJFlores.

A willingness to offer obvious misinformation whether by ignorance OR by design damages credibility inside a debate rather than furthering the claims one is making. It is a bad tactic.

Clear
σισετωω

 

[Srivijaya]

Of course He died. His mortal body died and was buried,

Buried? Where does it say that? Where you there when they rolled the stone away? Spirit became flesh, so that flesh could become spirit, no?

Even a heathen Buddhist knows that, or maybe not...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Since they believe christ is the incarnation of god, with that carnation dies, god goes back to god, I guess. And I wonder, why would christians want to sin in order for them to be saved? Isn't the point of being saved is to, not, sin?

They rather see jesus crucified than physically serve god.

 

[dianaiad]

Buried? Where does it say that? Where you there when they rolled the stone away? Spirit became flesh, so that flesh could become spirit, no?

Even a heathen Buddhist knows that, or maybe not...

Well, I have only two things to go by.

First, the NT story about Him is that His body was taken from the cross and entombed. ('buried').
Second, all mortals die. It comes with the territory, and Jesus was mortal.

I have no reason to believe that He was NOT crucified and entombed (read...'buried'). Now I personally believe that He was also resurrected, 'the first fruits of them that slept' and all, but that's completely beside the point, isn't it?

The point of this thread, at least, my point, is that before one can be resurrected, one must die. Resurrection is the term meaning 'coming back from the dead,' more or less, isn't it?

One cannot 'come back from' something one didn't experience in the first place, any more than one can 'come back from' a vacation one did not actually take.

The question is...did Jesus die? Well, yes. He did. He was mortal. Mortals all die. Therefore Jesus did die. He may not have STAYED 'dead,' or rather, He may have been resurrected, but again, in order to be resurrected from the dead, one must be dead in the first place.

Dunno how many ways this point can be made, actually.

 

[Katzpur]

No you weren't. You and I both know that.

 

[MJFlores]

Even if the Book of Mormon says he didn't die, we know which is which
Even if the Tibetan Book of the Dead says he didn't die, we can set apart what to believe and what not

That is what you call a hypothetical statement.

In response to this incredibly strange and inaccurate claim, @Katzpur replied :


@Katzpur;

I very much agree with your comment on MJFlores ignorant claim. The main testimony of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind as an integral part of accomplishing the atonement. For MJFlores to claim that the "...the Book of Mormon says he didn't die..." (post #61) was either a purposeful attempt to misrepresent or incredible ignorance on the part of MJFlores.

A willingness to offer obvious misinformation whether by ignorance OR by design damages credibility inside a debate rather than furthering the claims one is making. It is a bad tactic.

Clear
σισετωω