jesus's death..

[Merlin]

Around six hours.

Six hours to die in crucifixion would have been a world record. The reason the Romans liked it so much, and crucified hundreds of thousands of people during their days of empire, is that it was so agonising for about three days, sometimes longer. They wanted it as a deterrent as well as a punishment.

When they needed the cross again for another person, and somebody was lifting themselves up to take a breath for too many days, they would break their legs to help them on their way. But basically you had to wait until you've had become exhausted and dehydrated to the point where you could not push up to allow you to take a proper breath.

Six hours is highly unlikely.

 

[Merlin]

Around six hours. See this site to find out more about when the Gospels were written.

http://www.geocities.com/airspirit3/newtestamentcanon.html

The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between AD 90 and 110. Everybody who knew Jesus would be long dead by then. also, Matthew had his own agenda.

Paul was first, about 40 or 50 years earlier.

 

[TashaN]

Dear Scott1, We will start with the famous statment by Paul.

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain."
(1 Corinthians 15:14)

I'll quote some of what i read first ...

Garner Ted Armstrong, the Executive Vice-President and Co-Publisher of the "PLAIN TRUTH"
(a Christian Magazine from America, which boasts a current, FREE, world-wide circulation of 6 million copies a month) , attempts to answer his own puzzle under the heading:
"WAS THE RESURRECTION A HOAX?" This is the typical American way of selling religion. He elucidates his poser -"HOAX?" - with the words, "THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH IS EITHER THE SUPREME FACT OF HISTORY OR A FLAGRANT. DELIBERATE FABRICATION FOISTED OFF ON THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRISTIANITY."

Another budding, young "Billy Graham" from America, Josh McDowell effuses in his book "THE RESURRECTION FACTOR", saying, "I WAS FORCED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS EITHER ONE OF THE MOST WICKED, HEARTLESS, VICIOUS, HOAXES EVER FOISTED UPON THE MINDS OF MEN, OR IT IS THE MOST FANTASTIC FACT OF HISTORY."

First of all, We have to see whether Jesus at that time wanted to be crucifeid or not.

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!"
Luke 22:35-36

". . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS." And he said unto them, "It is enough".
Luke 22:38

"And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priests, and cut off his ear."
Matthew 26:51

So what do you think about these verses?

Do you think Jesus went to the cross by his own well and he wanted it to be done?

 

[Aqualung]

For some reason I can't see any significance whatsoever the verses had to the question you asked.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Six hours to die in crucifixion would have been a world record. The reason the Romans liked it so much, and crucified hundreds of thousands of people during their days of empire, is that it was so agonising for about three days, sometimes longer. They wanted it as a deterrent as well as a punishment.

When they needed the cross again for another person, and somebody was lifting themselves up to take a breath for too many days, they would break their legs to help them on their way. But basically you had to wait until you've had become exhausted and dehydrated to the point where you could not push up to allow you to take a proper breath.

Six hours is highly unlikely.

Not if we take into consideration the multiple beatings that Jesus endured. The other two thieves who were crucified with Jesus died quickly, too. This was a special case also because all of the victims were Jewish and the Jews wanted to bury their dead before a religious feast - the Romans were very concerned with peace, and the Jews revolted when they didn't get things like that. Therefore, according to the biblical accounts, the Romans broke the legs of the other men and found Jesus dead because of his tremendous suffering.

 

[TashaN]

Not if we take into consideration the multiple beatings that Jesus endured. The other two thieves who were crucified with Jesus died quickly, too. This was a special case also because all of the victims were Jewish and the Jews wanted to bury their dead before a religious feast - the Romans were very concerned with peace, and the Jews revolted when they didn't get things like that. Therefore, according to the biblical accounts, the Romans broke the legs of the other men and found Jesus dead because of his tremendous suffering.

According to the Gospel writers, the Jews and the Romans managed to have Jesus on the cross by the 6th hour, that is by 12 noon; and by the 9th hour, that is, by 3 o'clock he had given up the ghost — he had died (?). The Jews! As much as they were in a hurry to mount Jesus on the cross, no sooner had they succeeded, they were once more agitated to bring him down. Can you imagine why? Their religious scruples -the Sabbath! They were warned in the "fifth Book of Moses":
"His body (any crucified person) shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shah in any wise bury him that day, (for he that is hanged is accursed of God), that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

(HOLY BIBLE) Deuteronomy 21:23

To appease the religious scruples of the Jews (or for any other reason) if it became necessary to expedite death on the cross, the executioners resorted to the "cruri-fragium", a club like horror with which the legs were broken. The victim expired by suffocation within the hour. This was the fast method.

The fourth above: "and they brake not his legs", we are told was in fulfilment of a prophecy:
"He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken."

(HOLY BIBLE) Psalm 34:20

If the bones of a victim were to be protected from harm, then they could only be of benefit if the person was ALIVE! For a person, already dead, intact bones mean nothing. Whether they are sawed into pieces, or smashed into smithereens, it will not make any difference to the resurrected body, the spirit or the ghost. But for living persons on the cross (like the "crossmates" of Jesus), the breaking of the legs made all the difference between life and death. The pagan Romans were not hell-bound to fulfil any prophecy. Their reason was that they "SAW that he was dead already, they brake not his legs". — (HOLY BIBLE) John 19:33

"SAW" is a very simple word. We may yet ask, what did they see? Could it be the fulfilment of the words of Christ: "seeing, ye shall see and shall not preceive" — (Matthew 13:14). When John says that the soldiers "saw", he means that they surmised. For no modern-day stethoscope was used to verify death; nor did anyone touch his body or feel his pulse before concluding that "he was dead already". I see in the word "saw" another step in God's plan of rescue.

 

[Scott1]

This is the typical American way of selling religion.

Other than your ignorant comment about the "American way" this piece does not provide any insight into the topic.

Another budding, young "Billy Graham" from America, Josh McDowell effuses in his book

I understand English is new to you, but do you actually think this stuff is evidence?:bonk:

So what do you think about these verses?

I think they have NOTHING to do with evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Do you think Jesus went to the cross by his own well and he wanted it to be done?

Yes.... but I'm sure that your Muslim wisdom will show me why I'm reading my Bible incorrectly.... I'll be waiting.

 

[Merlin]

Dear Scott1, We will start with the famous statment by Paul.

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain."
(1 Corinthians 15:14)

I'll quote some of what i read first ...

Garner Ted Armstrong, the Executive Vice-President and Co-Publisher of the "PLAIN TRUTH"
(a Christian Magazine from America, which boasts a current, FREE, world-wide circulation of 6 million copies a month) , attempts to answer his own puzzle under the heading:
"WAS THE RESURRECTION A HOAX?" This is the typical American way of selling religion. He elucidates his poser -"HOAX?" - with the words, "THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH IS EITHER THE SUPREME FACT OF HISTORY OR A FLAGRANT. DELIBERATE FABRICATION FOISTED OFF ON THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRISTIANITY."

Another budding, young "Billy Graham" from America, Josh McDowell effuses in his book "THE RESURRECTION FACTOR", saying, "I WAS FORCED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS EITHER ONE OF THE MOST WICKED, HEARTLESS, VICIOUS, HOAXES EVER FOISTED UPON THE MINDS OF MEN, OR IT IS THE MOST FANTASTIC FACT OF HISTORY."

First of all, We have to see whether Jesus at that time wanted to be crucifeid or not.

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!"
Luke 22:35-36

". . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS." And he said unto them, "It is enough".
Luke 22:38

"And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priests, and cut off his ear."
Matthew 26:51

So what do you think about these verses?

Do you think Jesus went to the cross by his own well and he wanted it to be done?

Can you tell us what are your objectives with these rather silly posts that you are making? I do not recall people attacking Islam. But it is no more logical than Christianity. It would be far better if you gave us positive thoughts rather than just attacking other people's faith.

Or would you like us to discuss whether the dreams of an illiterate from the Middle East is a good basis for a religion?

 

[dan]

Six hours to die in crucifixion would have been a world record. The reason the Romans liked it so much, and crucified hundreds of thousands of people during their days of empire, is that it was so agonising for about three days, sometimes longer. They wanted it as a deterrent as well as a punishment.

When they needed the cross again for another person, and somebody was lifting themselves up to take a breath for too many days, they would break their legs to help them on their way. But basically you had to wait until you've had become exhausted and dehydrated to the point where you could not push up to allow you to take a proper breath.

Six hours is highly unlikely.

Which is why Pilate was so astonished.

 

[dan]

The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between AD 90 and 110. Everybody who knew Jesus would be long dead by then. also, Matthew had his own agenda.

Paul was first, about 40 or 50 years earlier.

That it was actually written down during that time is impossible to prove. That it made its way through oral traditional is more likely. Ignatius writes his epistle in A.D.110 and never quotes any Gospels. He appears to have borrowed many phrases from Mark and Matthew, but never quotes them. In A.D.130 Papias writes about collections of Hebrew prophecies about Jesus that were written by Matthew, but he states that Christians prefer oral tradition to written. Polycarp uses some of the same phrases from Matthew, but doesn't quote him. Early Christian writers deemed Old Testament texts as scripture, but never New Tesament traditions. Even the Pauline Epistles (really the only ones with any shred of authenticity) are mentioned as good council but not scripture. The first Christian text that is universally known and considered canonical by authorities is the Sheppherd of Hermas. it and the Book of Barnabas are two of the books included in the oldest bible in existence. These two books mention many phrases from the Gospels but do not quote them. They do, however, quote the apocryphal Book of Eldad and Modat. Quoting writers was an important part of the culture back then, and credit was never excluded if a writer borrowed any material. The evidence overwhelmingly points to no Gospels actually being written down until somewhere between A.D.135 and A.D.147.

 

[blueman]

Jesus was the only one that could do it for the redemption of mankind. As part of God's purpose, He was willing to sacrifice His Son so that we could have reconciliation and a relationship with God. No ordinary human would have been worthy of redeeming the sins of the human race. What Jesus did on the cross was not designed to eliminate bad things from happening, but for those willing to believe and accept Him as Saviour, his death and resurrection provided a path to a relationship with God and everlasting union with Him.

 

[gayvin]

u guys made a lot of things clear for me

but now i have another question

when u guys said "god sacrificed his son"...its kinda like saying god sacrificing himself (since jesus was god in physical form)..but was his sacrifice really a big sacrifice?...god safrificed himself KNOWING he was gonna be resurrected in 3 days so that we can have a close relationship with god

 

[TashaN]

Can you tell us what are your objectives with these rather silly posts that you are making? I do not recall people attacking Islam. But it is no more logical than Christianity. It would be far better if you gave us positive thoughts rather than just attacking other people's faith.

Or would you like us to discuss whether the dreams of an illiterate from the Middle East is a good basis for a religion?

I don't know why you are thinking that i'm attacking rather than discussing in the topic itself.

Anyway, i'll leave it to the christians themselves and the others faith too to discuss about it because a Muslim thoughts and discussion may let others feel like i'm attacking just because i'm a Muslim.

In case you want to discuss about the "an illitrate" i don't mind at all and we can discuss about it anytime.

 

[dan]

u guys made a lot of things clear for me

but now i have another question

when u guys said "god sacrificed his son"...its kinda like saying god sacrificing himself (since jesus was god in physical form)..but was his sacrifice really a big sacrifice?...god safrificed himself KNOWING he was gonna be resurrected in 3 days so that we can have a close relationship with god

That doesn't make it any easier to see His Son go through so much pain and suffering. He had to do it alone, too. God had to turn His back on Him.

 

[Merlin]

The evidence overwhelmingly points to no Gospels actually being written down until somewhere between A.D.135 and A.D.147.

I do admire the certainty with which you express your beliefs. It is to your credit.

There are many scholars who would disagree with your above statements. Frankly, I don't think it matters one way or the other. This thread within a thread was started by me when somebody was carefully analysing and changing minute sections of wording from one of the Gospels. I was making the point that as this writing all took place many years after the event, and when the stories have passed down through some generations and passed across some languages, there is little point in trying to break it down into such a minute analysis.

I do agree that Paul is the most important writer. Especially Romans.

 

[Bennettresearch]

i've been askin myself this question...and asked many of my friends this question but no one seemed to be able to answer me...i guess its a pretty dumb question but..

i was thinkin..
wouldnt anyone have died on that cross to get rid of sin?...why is it so special when jesus did it...if gods idea was to flood the earth or cause a disaster to earth (which he proved he would) because it was overflowed with sin..wouldnt any human being go on that cross and be tortured like that just to prevent the disasters?..i am not trying to make god sound evil...i was just curious..

Hey Gayvin,

Interesting question. I would like to start out with the fact that no everyone signs on with the Paulist doctrine of blood sacrifice for sins. The story of Abraham and Isaac points out that we are not supposed to sacrifice our children. The whole reason that Jesus stormed the Temple was because people were selling articles for the ritual sacrifice in the Temple. It wasn't only about money changing. Jesus challenged many Jewish traditions and to rationalize His crucifixion as being one of washing our sins in his blood is highly suspect as the true meaning of it. Next, Joseph appealed to have Him taken off the Cross before sunset because of Jewish law. There is a distinct possiblility that He was not dead yet. Blood and water can come from the stomach. The incident where Mary sees Him in the garden and doesn't recognize him is the most interesting. He is said in the Gospels to be alive at the time. There is a very very probable possibility that the story in the Gospels had changed to support the contention that if Jesus is God, then the crucifixion couldn't have happened if it weren't planned that way.

Some might say that this would take it all away from Jesus but I disagree. As a prophet who had the Holy Spirit, His impact is just as great as a mortal human who is connected to God. This was His mission, to bring us to God. The establishment took Him out because He was mortal. God couldn't save Him from this.

 

[Merlin]

I don't know why you are thinking that i'm attacking rather than discussing in the topic itself.

Anyway, i'll leave it to the christians themselves and the others faith too to discuss about it because a Muslim thoughts and discussion may let others feel like i'm attacking just because i'm a Muslim.

In case you want to discuss about the "an illitrate" i don't mind at all and we can discuss about it anytime.

I would never attack your faith or anybody else's. Islam is mostly a caring religion, and certainly one that would not permit suicide bombers. I have shared worship in a mosque in Saudi Arabia on more than one occasion. Of course, I needed an interpreter, but nevertheless it was quite a pleasant and holy experience.

The point I'm making is that Islam is no more and no less logical than any other religion. There are no religions that I know of that have logical starting points. They all start with some magic event or events that you either believe or do not. Islam is no different from that.

 

[TashaN]

I would never attack your faith or anybody else's. Islam is mostly a caring religion, and certainly one that would not permit suicide bombers. I have shared worship in a mosque in Saudi Arabia on more than one occasion. Of course, I needed an interpreter, but nevertheless it was quite a pleasant and holy experience.

The point I'm making is that Islam is no more and no less logical than any other religion. There are no religions that I know of that have logical starting points. They all start with some magic event or events that you either believe or do not. Islam is no different from that.

I didn't attack no body and posting the QUOTATION that doesn't mean i agree about it but i just wanted to show how other christians see it and you know well that Muslims will never work against a prophet "JESUS" who they believe that he is a main part of thier dogma. The post that make you upset wasn't all for me and i did mention that i'll QUOTE it to see what is your opnion about it. It just that i got surprised when i saw some christians talk about Jesus that way and i never used it to prove my point but just to see what do you think about them and thier books.

the words that belong to me was this only:

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain."
(1 Corinthians 15:14)

and this one:

First of all, We have to see whether Jesus at that time wanted to be crucifeid or not.

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!"
Luke 22:35-36

". . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS." And he said unto them, "It is enough".
Luke 22:38

"And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priests, and cut off his ear."
Matthew 26:51

So what do you think about these verses?

Do you think Jesus went to the cross by his own well and he wanted it to be done?

and the rest wasn't a part of my opnion or my beliefs and i'll never say such a thing.

That's why you and scott1 misunderstand me.:banghead3

 

[Murf661]

Christ's Atonement is the same. We are all condemned by sin, and the scriptures are claer that every man must pay for his own sins. Christ suffered more than the sum of all pain and suffering that all sin would have inflicted......The consequences for all of our sins were not weighed out and placed on Jesus' back, HE actually suffered more.

Murder and suicide is a sin right?...So your telling that one dude getting put on the cross, was more painful than all the people who have been murdered and committed suicide ever?

1 guy on cross=1 Horrific Murder
1 guy on cross DOESNT = Millions of murders

 

[Aqualung]

It wasn't his crucifixion that payed for our sins. IT was when he was in the garden of gesthemane, bleeding from every pore because the pain was so great that he payed for our sins.