• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

Was Jesus crucified?


  • Total voters
    54

joelr

Well-Known Member
Multiple independent historical sources, both Christian and non-Christian, attest to the crucifixion.

This is evidence. It is the same kind of evidence that we have for most ancient history.



.
That's the opposite of what's true.
All outside sources are considered later additions by the church or simply mentioning Christians who follow he gospels.

The gospels are not historical and read exactly as myth and are all copied from of Mark.
The Paul that is authentic mentions only scripture and revelation, no life of Jesus.
Like historian Richard Carrier says the evidence "sucks".
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The Bible is correct and the Qu'ran is correct. The Muslims are wrong about the Qu'ran as usual. When it comes to Jesus they put blinders on.

Jesus was placed on the cross which is interpreted as being crucified but He left the body before death so the crucifixion was never completed so one could say He wasn't crucified.


How do you deal with Jesus predicting he will die and raise himself? as he did in John 2?

I see Genesis as largely historical


 

Riders

Well-Known Member
How do you deal with Jesus predicting he will die and raise himself? as he did in John 2?

I see Genesis as largely historical


By the time Jesus came there had already been a bunch of saviors to give his life, and also there was a Messiah movement at the time where saviors were already crucified.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
That's the opposite of what's true.
All outside sources are considered later additions by the church or simply mentioning Christians who follow he gospels.

The gospels are not historical and read exactly as myth and are all copied from of Mark.
The Paul that is authentic mentions only scripture and revelation, no life of Jesus.
Like historian Richard Carrier says the evidence "sucks".

Even 'the Jesus Seminar" liberals are certain Jesus died on the cross.
Even extra biblical sources agree there was darkness over the whole world consistent with the claims the sun did not shine for hours while Jesus died

 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
By the time Jesus came there had already been a bunch of saviors to give his life, and also there was a Messiah movement at the time where saviors were already crucified.

true but only one with a 'spotless sinless savior' and only one rose form the dead
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Yes, he was certainly crucified.

There are three aspects of Jesus's life that command virtually universal assent amongst scholars of antiquity: his baptism by John for remission of sin, his riotous disturbance in the Temple during Pesach and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate on the instigation of the High Priest Caiaphas.

If everything else about Jesus is at least contestable or doubtful, these three facts are not.

The reason these events are accorded such a high degree of historical credibility, quite apart from their unanimous attestation in different traditions including secular sources in the case of the cross, is that they fit what we know about the the social milieu of the time and caused grave embarrassment for the early church, such that New Testament authors endeavoured to gloss over them or make them 'fit' into theological doctrines.

Something important to bear in mind about ancient Roman and Jewish understandings of death:


The condition of human life is chiefly determined by its first and last days, because it is of the greatest importance under what auspices it is begun and with what end it is terminated.’

- Valerius Maximus (Memorable Doings and Sayings (“On Deaths out of the Ordinary”) 9.12 praef. LCL 493, trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey)

A person’s birth and death were felt to be an indication of his or her true character.

On both accounts, his birth and death, Jesus 'failed' the test - and very badly - of true Roman manhood and heroism: he was born of peasants in Nazareth (a backwater derided even by Judean Jews "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:43)) and died the most ignoble torture-death. Cicero described crucifixion as ‘the greatest punishment of slavery’ (Verr. 2.5), while Josephus labelled it ‘the most pitiable of deaths’ (War 7.203).

Jesus's "true" character, then, in the eyes of Romans would have been as a piteous 'slave' and insurrectionist against the empire, abandoned by even his closest followers and left to endure the mockery of the crowds as he hung there naked and asphyxiated with a mock crown of thorns on his head.

As Professor Helen K. Bond, an expert on this period, has noted:


"Crucifixion was the most shameful, brutal and degrading form of capital punishment known to the ancient world, reserved for slaves, brigands and any who set themselves up against imperial rule. It was intended to be public, to act both as a deterrent to others and to provide spectacle, even entertainment, to onlookers.

It was a form of death in which the caprice and sadism of the executioners was allowed full reign, as they devised ever more gruesome ways to ridicule the condemned. Stripped naked, the victim was humiliated and shamed as he suffered extreme agony, perhaps for several days, until, overcome by suffocation and exhaustion, the merciful end would come.

So offensive was the cross that civilized people preferred not to talk about it, and few Roman writers ever dwelt on any of the details...


There is no getting away from the fact that Mark’s account, particularly in the crucifixion scene, is the very opposite of a “good death”: Jesus dies alone, in agonized torment, with no one to perform even the most basic rites. As Adela Collins puts it, Jesus’ death in Mark is “anguished, human, and realistic.”"​

(see also, J. G. Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).​


It is mendacious in the extreme to imagine that anyone in their right mind would make such a story up while living under the Romans. The gospels were written to 'defend' the legacy of Jesus and defiantly keep his memory alive, in spite of the Roman attempt to silence and discredit him through crucifixion. If I might quote Professor Bond again:


"...Jesus’ crucifixion was an attempt by the rulers of his day to consign not only his body but also his memory to oblivion. In many ways, Mark’s bios can be seen as an act of defiance, a refusal to accept the Roman sentence and an attempt to shape the way in which both his life and death should be remembered.

His work takes the place of a funeral ovation, outlining Jesus’ way of life and pointing to the family of believers who succeed him.

While men of higher class and greater worldly distinction might have had their epitaphs set in stone, Mark provides his hero with a written monument to a truly worthy life. Mark redeems Jesus’ death not by casting it as ‘noble’ or conventionally ‘honourable,’ but by showing that it conforms perfectly to his counter-cultural teaching
..."​

(Bond, H 2018, 'A fitting end? Self-denial and a slave’s death in Mark’s life of Jesus' New Testament Studies)

Given its deeply subversive nature as a symbol of resistance to Roman imperial rule, the 'cross' and the shameful slave death that it represents, was evidently not a literary fiction of the early Christians. It's as historical an event as any from antiquity can be. The early Christians turned an unremitting tragedy into a literary triumph that has gone on to touch the lives of billions and in so doing defied Jesus's Roman executioners, by making his memory eternal.

We know Jesus and his death are historically accurate, because myths don't come baked in with such shoddy realism.

Ritual Jewish immersion is not baptism for sin.. I have NEVER heard even an ignorant Christian claim that it was.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

No, Jesus did not die on the cross.
Bahaullah's siding with the Pauline-Christianity exposes Bahaullah's "infallibility" and makes him a fallible human being.

Regards
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

No, Jesus did not die on the cross.
Bahaullah's siding with the Pauline-Christianity exposes Bahaullah's "infallibility" and makes him a fallible human being.

Regards
Ok could you explain this to me in simple terms I am not a B'ahai so I wouldn't know
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

No, Jesus did not die on the cross.
Bahaullah's siding with the Pauline-Christianity exposes Bahaullah's "infallibility" and makes him a fallible human being.

Regards

The problems with that argument are many.

1/ It relies on a rigid interpretation of two verses in the Quran.

2/ All four Gospels clearly outline that Jesus was crucified. The apostles (not just Paul) clearly believe He was crucified.

3/ There is no good reason to believe He was crucified as crucifixion was common practice by the Romans.

4/ Most historians (even atheists) agree He was crucified. The only ones that don't are those who deny He existed in the first place.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

No, Jesus did not die on the cross.
Bahaullah's siding with the Pauline-Christianity exposes Bahaullah's "infallibility" and makes him a fallible human being.

Regards

Infallibility of their prophet is a core Baha'i belief, Paar. Because a belief of such a nature is so subjective, there is no way to prove or disprove it. You cna choose to not believe it, of it you're a baha'i you pretty much have to believe it, 9or call yourself a liberal Baha'i). Non-Baha'i;s, if they've heard of the baha'i faith at all, don't believe it.

I defend the right of anyone to believe anything they want, no matter how illogical it appears to me. It's just belief, not truth.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
This is a question that is often debated by Muslims and Christians.

The Christians refer to the four gospel accounts that provide clear accounts of Christ's crucifixion. Historians, including atheists usually agree Christ was crucified. When they don't its because they don't believe Jesus existed at all.

Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified at all based on the following verses in the Quran.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.
"For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified."

It is wrong understanding of the Quran verses. Bahaullah was not a well-grounded in knowledge person of Quran, so he understood it wrongly.

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Infallibility of their prophet is a core Baha'i belief, Paar. Because a belief of such a nature is so subjective, there is no way to prove or disprove it. You cna choose to not believe it, of it you're a baha'i you pretty much have to believe it, 9or call yourself a liberal Baha'i). Non-Baha'i;s, if they've heard of the baha'i faith at all, don't believe it.

I defend the right of anyone to believe anything they want, no matter how illogical it appears to me. It's just belief, not truth.
I always also defend Bahaullah's followers in connection with their right to believe in whatever they want to believe but in relation to Quran, Bahaullah had a shallow knowledge of Quran, that is my point, please.

Regards
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I always also defend Bahaullah's followers in connection with their right to believe in whatever they want to believe but in relation to Quran, Bahaullah had a shallow knowledge of Quran, that is my point, please.
Oh definitely. He had a much shallower knowledge of Hinduism. Having grown up in Persia, he had some understanding of Islam though. But I think because he declared himself infallible (incredibly smart) he may well have had a very difficult time learning from others. That's common with delusions of grandeur.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified."

It is wrong understanding of the Quran verses. Bahaullah was not a well-grounded in knowledge person of Quran, so he understood it wrongly.

Regards

Here's what the Quran says:

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.


Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally by most Muslims. There's no need to insist on this approach other than centuries of unquestioned tradition.

In the Gospel of Matthew 27:32-50 it is written:

And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
And sitting down they watched him there;
And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.
Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.


This Gospel of Matthew along with Mark, Luke and John all give clear unambiguous accounts of a crucifixion unlike the two verses in the Quran that mention the crucifixion. Further Muslims reject the Gospels and therefore their own prophet Muhammad who affirmed the truth of the Gospels.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
When I was first converted to Islam, I was told that the Yusuf Ali interpretation was the best. He was a man of Indian descent that lived in the UK, and highly respected. I would be interested to know if this translation is by him? Yes, there are two versions of the story, I'm told. I used to have the names of those who wrote them, but that has been years since.

For me, the things that really tell me who I am to be are not dependent upon the Crucifiction. I think that no one can use the falsifying of the story to have an excuse for doing things that displease God, Allah SWT, or whoever you wish to call him.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
When I was first converted to Islam, I was told that the Yusuf Ali interpretation was the best. He was a man of Indian descent that lived in the UK, and highly respected. I would be interested to know if this translation is by him? Yes, there are two versions of the story, I'm told. I used to have the names of those who wrote them, but that has been years since.

For me, the things that really tell me who I am to be are not dependent upon the Crucifiction. I think that no one can use the falsifying of the story to have an excuse for doing things that displease God, Allah SWT, or whoever you wish to call him.

Yusaf Ali’s translation of the Holy Quran from Arabic to English is indeed considered amongst the best. However, it is not the role of one who translates, to also interpret. That is for each one of us.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
All four gospels say Jesus came back to life too, but Baha'is don't believe that. So why trust what the gospels say?

The crucifixion of Christ is not a supernatural or extraordinary phenomenon. It is consistent with known history and why would the Christians make it up? Coming back to life 3 days later and then ascending through the stratosphere is anything but ordinary.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
All four gospels say Jesus came back to life too, but Baha'is don't believe that. So why trust what the gospels say?

Does it matter if Jesus came back to life if one loves God and is obedient? Frankly, in my life, those who believe he came back to life and believe the things he said and did have not proven it by their changed lives.
 
Top