Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

[Ahmadi]

So we see here that Jesus was using the word 'God', and not the name of God, which he knew, that is YHWH.

What's the difference between the word God and the name of God? Please elaborate.:sarcastic

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

the word 'God' is a title like teacher, Mr, Sir, Lord, Madame, Doctor etc, whereas the 'name' of God is personal. for instance someone may be a doctor but their name maybe steven. so someone may be a god, but their personal name may be something else. i hope that helps...

 

[Ahmadi]

Thank you! That sure clears it up. And yes, as far as I know Allah is the personal name of God. Ilaahi is more like a title.

 

[joeboonda]

In John 20:25, Thomas said "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the NAILS... nails, plural, is 2 nails, one for each hand, which would most likely suggest a cross. There is more evidence, but i dont have time to look right now, my son wants the computer,lol. I am just glad Jesus died for me.

 

[may]

After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." (John 20:25) So even though criminals sometimes were bound to a stake with ropes, Jesus was nailed. Some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas’ use of the plural (nails) have to be understood as a precise description indicating that each of Jesus’ hands was pierced by a separate nail?




​

In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that Christ’s feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus’ feet, his use of the plural "nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.​

it just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists’ productions

 

[niamhwitch]

I was raised to believe that he was sacrificed on a stake, not a cross... but then again, I was raised in a JW household.

Whether he was killed on a crucifix or a stake... I wouldnt know... I wasnt there. And honestly, why does it matter? He was supposedly sacrificed for our "sins", does it REALLY matter what he was sacrificed on? Does it matter what symbol people use to represent their reverance for this man? I dont think it does, but that is just my opinion.

 

[cardero]

I think the reason the cross has been adopted over the years is because it closely relates to the teachings of the Trinity. The genuflection of the father (head),the son (stomach), the holy (left shoulder), ghost (right shoulder) comes to mind.

 

[may]

I think the reason the cross has been adopted over the years is because it closely relates to the teachings of the Trinity. The genuflection of the father (head),the son (stomach), the holy (left shoulder), ghost (right shoulder) comes to mind.

thats interesting, i have heard that the cross is a pagan symbol so that would make sense , as i believe that the trinity doctrine also has pagan roots so the question is what would the true God think of his followers if they took on pagan symbols ?abit like mixing true with false i would say.

 

[TashaN]

Hi there,

sorry if i sound ignorant but I was wondering about some of the beliefs of Muslims. Is it true that the word Allah, is a tile, such as Lord or God, or do you believe it to be his personal name? Also, you say that the God of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, Jesus was Allah and that some of the bible is true. That being so, the Bible refers to the name of their God as being YHWH and not as Allah. What are your views on this? Thanks.

"It is becoming ever more difficult to say with any confidence when, where and how the Israelites first came to know the god Yahweh. It may be that, as Exodus says, he was originally a Midianite god, introduced into the land of Canaan by immigrants from Egypt; or he may have started as a minor member of the Canaanite pantheon...Originally El was the supreme god for Israelites as he had always been for Canaanites. Even if one discounts the pronouncement of El in the Baal cycle,'The name of my son is Yaw'- the import of which is still being debated- one cannot ignore a passage in the Bible which shows Yahweh as subordinate to El. Deuteronomy 32:8 tells how when El Elyon, i.e., El the Most High, parcelled out the nations between his sons, Yahweh received Israel as his portion."

 

[TashaN]

In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that Christ’s feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus’ feet, his use of the plural "nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.​

it just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists’ productions

* "Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (I am the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have. . .
And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 24:39-40

What was the man trying to prove? That he had been resurrected from the dead? — That he was a spirit? — What has the demonstration of hands and feet to do with resurrection? "It is I MYSELF!" Can't you see? "For a SPIRIT ..." — any spirit, has "NO flesh and bones, as YOU see ME have!". This is an axiomatic, self-evident truth. You do not have to convince anybody, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or Agnostic. Everyone will acknowledge without any proof that A SPIRIT HAS NO FLESH AND BONES!

Jesus was telling his disciples, when he said: "Behold my HANDS and my FEET", that the body he wanted them to see, feel and touch was not a SPIRITUAL body, nor a METAMORPHOSED body, nor a RESURRECTED body. Because a resurrected "body" becomes spiritualised!

by the way, you should have taken a look at any performance for cruci-FICTION because you will notice that they weren't putiing any nail in thier feet at that time but the hands.

so we know now that he didn't mean to tell them he has been nailed by looking to his hands and feets but to see that he was alive not a ghost or spirit and the proof is:


"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones ( you calaimed i'm a spirit but i'm not ), as you see me have. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 24:39-40

 

[TashaN]

I think the reason the cross has been adopted over the years is because it closely relates to the teachings of the Trinity. The genuflection of the father (head),the son (stomach), the holy (left shoulder), ghost (right shoulder) comes to mind.

* hi carrdero,

may i ask you a simple question?

How can you proof that the Trinity itself ?
because it wasn't mention in the bible itself and how did you assumed which one is the head,stomach,left shoulder and the right one.
and by the way, i don't think Jesus is God because he never mention that even a single time in the bible.

I know this question must be like a shock for you cause you have been eduacted in this matter as a fact and the only truth but when we use our minds and we get separated from our emotion we will get to know new things in our life we havn't experinced before.

 

[James the Persian]

I think the reason the cross has been adopted over the years is because it closely relates to the teachings of the Trinity. The genuflection of the father (head),the son (stomach), the holy (left shoulder), ghost (right shoulder) comes to mind.

I kind of doubt this. Apart from the fact that we cross ourselves in the other direction (as did the pre-Schism Roman Church), the only Trinitarian symbolism in the Orthodox sign of the cross is in the position of the hand when making it - we put the first two fingers together with the thumb as a symbol of the trinity, the last two flat against the palm to signify Christ's human and divine natures. When we say, 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' we tend to cross ourselves three times - one for each Person. There is a lot of symbolism in the cross itself, but I don't know of any of it referring to the Trinity.

James

 

[Ahmadi]

"It is becoming ever more difficult to say with any confidence when, where and how the Israelites first came to know the god Yahweh. It may be that, as Exodus says, he was originally a Midianite god, introduced into the land of Canaan by immigrants from Egypt; or he may have started as a minor member of the Canaanite pantheon...Originally El was the supreme god for Israelites as he had always been for Canaanites. Even if one discounts the pronouncement of El in the Baal cycle,'The name of my son is Yaw'- the import of which is still being debated- one cannot ignore a passage in the Bible which shows Yahweh as subordinate to El. Deuteronomy 32:8 tells how when El Elyon, i.e., El the Most High, parcelled out the nations between his sons, Yahweh received Israel as his portion."

Hmmm... Interesting... Thanks for helping me understand.

 

[joeboonda]

I quoted the Bible earlier "unless I see the prints of the NAILS" indicating 2 nails, and also the very word crucify, or crucifixion denotes a cross.
I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
Now there's your trinity, not tying it to the cross, but thats what MY Bible says, its not a pagan doctrine.

 

[joeboonda]

Found something else. 28 times, the word CROSS is used in the new testament to describe the instrument used to kill Jesus, check out your STRONG's concordance for the exact verses.

 

[may]

* "Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (I am the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have. . .
And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 24:39-40

What was the man trying to prove? That he had been resurrected from the dead? — That he was a spirit? — What has the demonstration of hands and feet to do with resurrection? "It is I MYSELF!" Can't you see? "For a SPIRIT ..." — any spirit, has "NO flesh and bones, as YOU see ME have!". This is an axiomatic, self-evident truth. You do not have to convince anybody, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or Agnostic. Everyone will acknowledge without any proof that A SPIRIT HAS NO FLESH AND BONES!

Jesus was telling his disciples, when he said: "Behold my HANDS and my FEET", that the body he wanted them to see, feel and touch was not a SPIRITUAL body, nor a METAMORPHOSED body, nor a RESURRECTED body. Because a resurrected "body" becomes spiritualised!

by the way, you should have taken a look at any performance for cruci-FICTION because you will notice that they weren't putiing any nail in thier feet at that time but the hands.

so we know now that he didn't mean to tell them he has been nailed by looking to his hands and feets but to see that he was alive not a ghost or spirit and the proof is:


"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones ( you calaimed i'm a spirit but i'm not ), as you see me have. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 24:39-40

yes i think we got that ,back to the cross then

 

[may]

"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device."—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1 so it looks to me that if we are taking on symbols from other religions it would not please God . i think we should worship in spirit and truth not take on symbols

God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth...John 4;24

 

[James the Persian]

"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device."—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1 so it looks to me that if we are taking on symbols from other religions it would not please God . i think we should worship in spirit and truth not take on symbols

God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth...John 4;24

I find such arguments perplexing. Are you saying we should use no symbols whatsoever? If so, what are you doing typing? Our alphabet is entirely symbolic. If not, why home in on the cross? I think you'd be hard pressed trying to find a symbol that hasn't been used by some pagan culture in the past - the fish many evangelicals use is no exception. Maybe we should all just use the Chi-Rho? I know of no pagan religions that have used that one. Or the St. Andrew's (3 barred, bottom one tilted) cross? Likewise I know of no pagan culture that has used that. Of course, we Orthodox do use both of these symbols, and plain crosses, Tau crosses, paralel 3 barred crosses, the alpha and omega, the fish. All sorts of symbols. They're all fine. I don't understand Christians (even if they don't believe Christ was crucified) who have a problem with the symbols used (after all, by using a St. Andrew's cross we don't make any claim that that was the shape of the one on which He was crucified) - we wouldn't have a problem with anyone using any of these symbols. Why do you?

James

 

[TashaN]

I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
Now there's your trinity, not tying it to the cross, but thats what MY Bible says, its not a pagan doctrine.

* what if we found out there are many errors in the holy bible which makes this verse a fabricated verse?

This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement.

 

[may]

I find such arguments perplexing. Are you saying we should use no symbols whatsoever? If so, what are you doing typing? Our alphabet is entirely symbolic. If not, why home in on the cross? I think you'd be hard pressed trying to find a symbol that hasn't been used by some pagan culture in the past - the fish many evangelicals use is no exception. Maybe we should all just use the Chi-Rho? I know of no pagan religions that have used that one. Or the St. Andrew's (3 barred, bottom one tilted) cross? Likewise I know of no pagan culture that has used that. Of course, we Orthodox do use both of these symbols, and plain crosses, Tau crosses, paralel 3 barred crosses, the alpha and omega, the fish. All sorts of symbols. They're all fine. I don't understand Christians (even if they don't believe Christ was crucified) who have a problem with the symbols used (after all, by using a St. Andrew's cross we don't make any claim that that was the shape of the one on which He was crucified) - we wouldn't have a problem with anyone using any of these symbols. Why do you?

James

well for me i feel it would be offensive to the Almighty to use symbols in my worship but everyone to their owni just dont need them
1 Cor. 10:14: "My beloved ones, flee from idolatry." (An idol is an image or symbol that is an object of intense devotion, veneration, or worship.)

Ex. 20:4, 5, JB: "You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." (Notice that God commanded that his people not even make an image before which people would bow down.)but again it may not bother others but i feel it would be wrong

Concerning first-century Christians, History of the Christian Church says: "There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross."—(New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366...so i try to stick to the early christian way of doing things ,but again , others may not want to do that.free choice