The Whole Crucifixion Story Fact's Or Fiction ?

[pladecalvo]

I liked the psalms of David topic that was added, what I am about to say is only LDS doctrine and please if I get it wrong correct it but this is from what I understand from the scriptures:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ or Messiah was thought from the beginning of time to Adam and his posterity. If this was not so than why believe in any religion all religion weather it be Buddhism, wicken, catholic, Islam, or whatever it may be has parts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You may ask but in what form in many some changed over time though stories, pictures, oral history as time went through the story changed as mankind separated they changed the stories and the teachings over time, how that was done I do not know so lets look at some scriptures for this evidence:

Mosses 5:1-13:

1 And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.
2 And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.
3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.
4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.
9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.
13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they cloved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.

as you can see that from the beginning was given the Gosple of Salvation that only though the son of God can all man kind be saved. In verse 13 you can see that people were very easly swaid from the truth and things that are most pershus was lost. Lets look at something in the New Testament that will bring more light. Galatians 3:6-29:

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was badded because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all bone in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s bseed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now as you can see that the children of man were under a "schoolmaster" this is very important, what dose a school do? It teaches us the things that we need to know God but were did the curse come from well in Exodus 34:1-2 JST gives us that answer:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai,

Now this clears things up!! The question comes up quite a bit well two that I can thank of one being do we need the priesthood of God? And dose it need to be authorized like a drivers licends by God? Yes on both parts we each need the priesthood in order to stand by God or "we will be destroyed" this curse (know that curse for God is to take away blessings that he gave the children of men) was given for the people didn't understand the what’s known as the higher law. So in order to answer the question of: The whole Crucifixion story fact or fiction? I will answer fact for without it we will be destroyed one can find the answer like I did though the holy ghost which tell only truth and to do good continually.

I see! So your 'evidence' to prove that it's all true is..........the Bible. Sorry, but without any reason to think that the claims in the bible are true, we have no reason to accept any argument that you make on a "purely theological basis". So no purely theological proof is worth any thing unless the basis for the theology (the Bible) can be proved to be true. You may believe it to be true but I accept that no more than you would accept that Quran or the Rig Veda or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Elder Edda or any other religious work is true, all of which have, or still are, considered to be true by large numbers of people. Any theological argument is secondary to the primary issue of whether the stories in the bible are true and accurate or are they just stories.

​

​

​

​

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Al Qur'aan 17 ; 81 , And I Quote ; And Say The Facts Beyond Any Doubt Have Come And False Ways Were To Vanish In Time

What is the point of this ayah?

 

[TehuTi]

What is the point of this ayah?

Truth Have Come False Ways Will Vanish .

 

[logician]

"
[SIZE=+1]In the first Gospel story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the author of Mark engages in a carefully crafted and delicate balancing act over the question of responsibility for Jesus' death: between Jew and Roman, between the Jewish religious establishment and the secular arm of the Empire. Mark knew full well that only the Roman governor could condemn a man to the cross, but he also wanted to allot to the Jewish leaders and to the Jewish people as a whole an equal if not greater role in Jesus' execution.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]And so throughout his story Mark set the scene by having the chief priests, scribes and elders plot to do away with Jesus, and it is their forces who first arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He invented a follower of Jesus, Judas by name to symbolize all Jewry, who betrays Jesus to his enemies and leads the arresting force to him. And it is the High Priest and Sanhedrin who first question Jesus and abuse him, finding him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death—on grounds which have never made much sense. Indeed, the entire circumstances of Mark's trial before the Jewish Council can be seen to contravene so many known conventions and prohibitions that some scholars have been led to reject its very historicity. But that's a story for another time.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]When Jesus is finally turned over to the Roman governor, Mark makes Pilate behave in a manner which is entirely uncharacteristic of what we know of him from historical sources, and of Roman policy in general. By whitewashing Pilate, by having the demands of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people override his attempts to free Jesus, by having the crowd choose Barabbas over Jesus (an option no governor of Judea would ever have offered, and there is no record of such a Roman policy anywhere), Mark places the primary responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of the Jews.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]When Pilate finally washes his hands of the affair, official Roman brutality takes over, and Jesus is further abused, scourged and finally crucified. But the Jews immediately reenter the picture in the jeers of the spectators at the foot of the cross, and their obstinate unbelief is contrasted with the Roman centurion who declares in an act of faith that "truly this man was the Son of God." Finally, Mark brings God himself into the picture to hide the sun's face behind a blackened sky, and to repudiate his treacherous people by rending the very veil of his own holy sanctuary. Mark thus set the course for the Jews' wretched fate at the hands of Christians and the Christian church for the next two millennia, and Matthew would seal its ferocity with the most heinous line of fiction ever penned: "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Such is the picture of Jesus' death presented in the Gospels: the unjust execution of an innocent man, beset by betrayal and false accusations and a pitiless establishment. Its lurid details should have been indelibly branded into the mind of every Christian preacher and writer, every convert to the new faith. Instead, there is scarcely a murmur of it until Mark—drawing on a multitude of scriptural passages and an old literary formula found throughout centuries of Jewish writing, known as the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One—sits down to pen his tale, a good half century or more after it all supposedly took place.[/SIZE] "

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

I see! So your 'evidence' to prove that it's all true is..........the Bible. Sorry, but without any reason to think that the claims in the bible are true, we have no reason to accept any argument that you make on a "purely theological basis". So no purely theological proof is worth any thing unless the basis for the theology (the Bible) can be proved to be true. You may believe it to be true but I accept that no more than you would accept that Quran or the Rig Veda or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Elder Edda or any other religious work is true, all of which have, or still are, considered to be true by large numbers of people. Any theological argument is secondary to the primary issue of whether the stories in the bible are true and accurate or are they just stories.

​

​

​

​

the bible is the catalist for truth not the means... all things need to be tought by the spirit of God or the holy ghost which is my prof... scriptor accounts provide a pattern for spirital things to act upon themselves so that we may not be decived... once you find the truth in the holy ghost it is then easyer to acept truth from the bible...

 

[lew0049]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

Please read this as it addresses MANY issues that skeptics present. Try to read it fully.

 

[pladecalvo]

"
[SIZE=+1]In the first Gospel story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the author of Mark engages in a carefully crafted and delicate balancing act over the question of responsibility for Jesus' death: between Jew and Roman, between the Jewish religious establishment and the secular arm of the Empire. Mark knew full well that only the Roman governor could condemn a man to the cross, but he also wanted to allot to the Jewish leaders and to the Jewish people as a whole an equal if not greater role in Jesus' execution.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]And so throughout his story Mark set the scene by having the chief priests, scribes and elders plot to do away with Jesus, and it is their forces who first arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He invented a follower of Jesus, Judas by name :yes: to symbolize all Jewry, who betrays Jesus to his enemies and leads the arresting force to him. And it is the High Priest and Sanhedrin who first question Jesus and abuse him, finding him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death—on grounds which have never made much sense. Indeed, the entire circumstances of Mark's trial before the Jewish Council can be seen to contravene so many known conventions and prohibitions that some scholars have been led to reject its very historicity. But that's a story for another time.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]When Jesus is finally turned over to the Roman governor, Mark makes Pilate behave in a manner which is entirely uncharacteristic of what we know of him from historical sources, and of Roman policy in general. By whitewashing Pilate, by having the demands of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people override his attempts to free Jesus, by having the crowd choose Barabbas over Jesus (an option no governor of Judea would ever have offered, and there is no record of such a Roman policy anywhere), Mark places the primary responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of the Jews.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]When Pilate finally washes his hands of the affair, official Roman brutality takes over, and Jesus is further abused, scourged and finally crucified. But the Jews immediately reenter the picture in the jeers of the spectators at the foot of the cross, and their obstinate unbelief is contrasted with the Roman centurion who declares in an act of faith that "truly this man was the Son of God." Finally, Mark brings God himself into the picture to hide the sun's face behind a blackened sky, and to repudiate his treacherous people by rending the very veil of his own holy sanctuary. Mark thus set the course for the Jews' wretched fate at the hands of Christians and the Christian church for the next two millennia, and Matthew would seal its ferocity with the most heinous line of fiction ever penned: "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Such is the picture of Jesus' death presented in the Gospels: the unjust execution of an innocent man, beset by betrayal and false accusations and a pitiless establishment. Its lurid details should have been indelibly branded into the mind of every Christian preacher and writer, every convert to the new faith. Instead, there is scarcely a murmur of it until Mark—drawing on a multitude of scriptural passages and an old literary formula found throughout centuries of Jewish writing, known as the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One—sits down to pen his tale, a good half century or more after it all supposedly took place.[/SIZE] "

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

Thanks for that info Wanderer. Nice to see that Judas was "invented". Makes you think what else has been 'invented'.

 

[pladecalvo]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

Please read this as it addresses MANY issues that skeptics present. Try to read it fully.

Now just why would I want to research a Christian apologist web-site? I might as well tell you to go and look at www.jesusneverexisted.com

As I suspected Lew. You may have done some research but unfortunately it's all come from Christian sources and Christian apologist sources. Hardly unbiased is it. You're never going to get anywhere if you only look at Christian 'evidence'.

 

[lew0049]

actually pladecalo - I have looked at so many sites just like the one you mentioned - and in fact, within the last hour. It seems obvious from your responses that you try and pick out various lines without looking at the BIG picture at all. I do hope that you realize that there will ALWAYS be skeptics. Reading information by very well-known historian scholars would enhance your knowledge. Just read the document, what could it hurt?

 

[pladecalvo]

actually pladecalo - I have looked at so many sites just like the one you mentioned - and in fact, within the last hour. It seems obvious from your responses that you try and pick out various lines without looking at the BIG picture at all. I do hope that you realize that there will ALWAYS be skeptics. Reading information by very well-known historian scholars would enhance your knowledge. Just read the document, what could it hurt?

Tried the link and it doesn't work.

 

[lew0049]

I'm going to re-read your previous post when I have time (busy) - but what I found from most of the skeptical websites did not logically make sense. It seems as though one controversial sentense is analyzed (which of course is necessary), then an opinion is given, and then an entirely new story is made from this one verse.

 

[Mister_T]

Now just why would I want to research a Christian apologist web-site? I might as well tell you to go and look at www.jesusneverexisted.com

As I suspected Lew. You may have done some research but unfortunately it's all come from Christian sources and Christian apologist sources. Hardly unbiased is it. You're never going to get anywhere if you only look at Christian 'evidence'.

And I'm sure the "Jesus never existed" sites aren't biased at all.

 

[lew0049]

Do you not understand why there are so many historians that are Christians? Probably because from their research, which is far more extensive than any of ours, it confirms to them that Jesus lived and was crucified. WIll there ever be enough evidence to be 100% certain? Of course not, it was 2,000 years ago. That is where I guess you have to have a LITTLE bit of faith.
It is interesting though that I cannot find one document from 0-100 AD that dispute someone named Jesus being alive. And do you realize how many SPECIFIC names are mentioned in the New Testament (gospels) that could be easily refuted by those people mentioned?

 

[lew0049]

Ummm, the quote from wonderer is incredibly speculative - do you notice how it makes one assumtion then another then another... I don't think there is one bit of evidence presented except the logic of the writer.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html - linked worked for me, it really is a good read so I would suggest reading it.

 

[lew0049]

Here is a brief part of the link:

The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a very peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. "The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A. Wells; the most recent is The Jesus Legend (1996). His case is quite simple: until the beginning of the second century AD Christians worshipped Jesus as a mythical 'Saviour' figure; only at that point did they make their 'Saviour' a historical person who lived and taught in Galilee.
"This intriguing theory rests on several pillars, all of which are shaky. Nonetheless it is worth taking it seriously, for it raises important issues for the student of the gospels.
"Wells argues that before C. AD 150 there is no independent non-Christian evidence for the existence of Jesus. The slender Jewish and pagan references to Jesus all echo Christian insistence that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate-and Christians began to make this claim only at the end of the first century. Why did Roman writers such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny say hardly-anything about Jesus and his followers? As Wells himself concedes, from their point of view Jesus and earliest Christianity were no more important than the many other charismatic religious leaders and movements which were two a penny all over the Roman empire-and Palestine was a remote corner of the empire!
"Wells stresses that in the earlier New Testament letters there is a strange silence about the life of Jesus and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Wells notes (correctly) that the very earliest Christian credal statements and hymns quoted by Paul in his letters in the 50s do not mention either the crucifixion or Pilate, or in fact any events in the life of Jesus. But as every student of ancient history is aware, it is an elementary error to suppose that the unmentioned did not exist or was not accepted. Precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran. So we should hardlyexpect to find such references in very terse early creeds or hymns, or even in letters sent by Paul to individual Christian communities to deal with particular problems.
"Wells claims that the four gospels were written C. AD 100 and that the evangelists largely invented their traditions about the life of Jesus. But by this date Christianity was flourishing in many parts of the Roman Empire: it had hardly survived at all in Palestine and the four gospels were almost certainly not written there. If, as Wells claims, they were largely invented in a Roman and Hellenistic cultural setting, it becomes much harder than he supposes to account for the numerous details, many of which are purely incidental to the purposes of the evangelists, which do fit into our knowledge of first-century Palestine.
"As we have stressed repeatedly in the preceding chapters, traditions about Jesus were preserved and to a certain extent modified in the light of the convictions about his significance held by his followers in the period after Easter. But indications of modification do not (as Wells supposes) necessarily imply invention. If the gospel traditions were invented about AD 100 why is it far from easy (with the exception of John's gospel) to find in them traces of the convictions, emphases, and problems of the Christians of that period?
"Why would proclamation of Jesus as a historical person assist Christian evangelism more than proclamation of a mythical figure? If the historical existence of Jesus was invented only in about AD 100, why was it necessary to create so many detailed traditions?
"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus.
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."
​

 

[lew0049]

Here's another part I thought was interesting because I have seen many disputes about the matter

 

[pladecalvo]

And I'm sure the "Jesus never existed" sites aren't biased at all.

That's the point I was making MrT. I was being asked to go to a Christian web site to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, which is about as much use as going to jesusneverexisted. com to get 'evidence' to prove that he didn't.

 

[pladecalvo]

Lew,
The article you posted is by Prof. Graham Stanton, a Prof of Divinity at Cambridge University. In other word, he is a CHRISTIAN and therefore biased. He has also written a book called "Jesus of Nazareth" and is apparently unaware that Nazareth did not exist until the 3rd century CE.

 

[Mister_T]

That's the point I was making MrT. I was being asked to go to a Christian web site to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, which is about as much use as going to jesusneverexisted. com to get 'evidence' to prove that he didn't.

Sorry. I misread your post. :sorry1:

 

[pladecalvo]

Do you not understand why there are so many historians that are Christians?

Do you not understand why there are so many historians that are not Christians? I think you may be getting a little confused about historians agreeing that Jesus existed. Yes, many agree that a man named Jesus probably existed in the first century CE. They are far from agreed that he was 'the son of god'. Most historians agree that Jesus, if he existed, was nothing more than an itinerant rabble rouser who upset the Romans.

Probably because from their research, which is far more extensive than any of ours, it confirms to them that Jesus lived and was crucified. WIll there ever be enough evidence to be 100% certain? Of course not, it was 2,000 years ago. That is where I guess you have to have a LITTLE bit of faith.

Unfortunately, Christians confuse "Faith" with "Truth".

It is interesting though that I cannot find one document from 0-100 AD that dispute someone named Jesus being alive.

Of course you can't. That's because nobody had even heard of Jesus until the gospels were circulated in the mid 2nd century.

And do you realize how many SPECIFIC names are mentioned in the New Testament (gospels) that could be easily refuted by those people mentioned?

I've already given you a list of historians that did dispute the gospels.