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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Really? You can't answer the question and instead, throw out a lame attempt at an insult. You really need to learn how to debate. Plus, I'm currently pursuing a degree in religion, so yeah, I know scripture.
Look at the genealogies of Jesus. Look at the creation stories. Even the day in which Jesus died is contradicted in the Bible. If you don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible it's because you've turned a blind eye to them.
Actually, we have no eye witness accounts. The first account comes from Paul, who was not an eye witness. The first in depth account was from the author of Mark (or at least the first one we have) which didn't come until around 70 C.E. Not an eye witness.
Except the Quran does not state that. And there are no eye witness accounts.
And we've seen that you think you can read Arabic, yet really have no idea what it truly means. We've also seen you can't debate, as is obvious from the above quote.
Another sign of you being unable to debate. But don't let those pesky little things called facts annoy you. They are only for people who are logical and rational, not people who simply rely on blind faith to guide them.
Being crucified is simply the act of being nailed to a cross. It does not imply death.
It wasn't three hours. We are told in Mark that it was 6 hours. It is a short time; however, it does not imply he was not dead. It is not impossible for an individual to have died after only 6 hours.
That proves nothing at all. Whether or not his cross mates were alive is completely besides the point. The reason being we don't know what condition they were in when they were crucified.
Again, it does not prove that he was alive. We do have the remains of at least one victim who died from crucifixion (we know this because he still even had the spike in his leg). His legs were not broken either, but he had died from crucifixion. The breaking of legs was not necessary for a crucifixion. It may have been used on some, but it was not a must.
That proves nothing. It could signify that Jesus was resurrected. It could signify someone stole his body. It does not prove that Jesus was alive. Especially since we are told that he was dead.
First, the Jews wouldn't have cared if he was alive. They would not have tried to kill him. They were not responsible for the crucifixion. The Romans crucified Jesus. They are responsible for his death.
That makes very little sense. It was a tomb. It was made to be a tomb. It was a place to lay the dead. The fact that he was put there suggests that he was dead, not alive. It wasn't some special tomb, it was a normal tomb. Again, it was a tomb, a place to lay the dead.
You are assuming to much. Jesus says when Mary should not touch him. What you are doing here is picking and choosing what you want to believe, and then making baseless assertions about those. There is no suggestion Jesus was in pain.
It means exactly what he said, he had not yet ascended unto his father. It means nothing else. The Bible claims that he had a physical resurrection. So it would make sense, if that story is true, that there was no ascension yet.
That was not why he showed the wounds. We are told very clearly that Jesus died, and then was resurrected. In a physical resurrection, he still would have had the wounds on his hands and feet. More so though, we are told of this story only in John, and there is very little reason to believe that the story ever happened.
Wrong again. He was, according to the Bible, a physically resurrected body. They were over joyed because they knew he was dead, and he came back to life. He was alive then, but it does not suggest that he had not died. Actually, we are told that he had died.
Because, according to the Biblical account, he had been resurrected. It does not suggest he hadn't died.
Alive as in resurrected. You have to take the account in context.
First, it does mean a crucifixion. He was nailed to a cross. Thus he was crucified. You need a better understanding of the word crucify.
The Quran is not a very good source here. The main reason being that it is distant from the events by centuries. The best and most reliable sources we have claim that he had died. There is no reason to believe that he hadn't died. The Romans were superb in their crucifixion methods. There is no reason to assume they screwed up on this account.
he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. (Luke 23:51-56)
Where is it written in bible that Jesus(pbuh) was resurrected in physical bodily form
Paul, the Gospels, both state that Jesus was literally resurrected. That implies a physical bodily form. If we look at the other cases of resurrection in the Gospel accounts, they refer to physical bodily resurrections. If we look at the idea of resurrection in 1st century Judaism, it was a physical bodily resurrection. There is no reason to believe anything else.
i mentioned it earlier all three of them were brought down earlier , after 3 or 6 hours although it takes several days to die from crucifixion
like i said before In Roman-style crucifixion, the victim took days to die slowly from suffocation ,so this proves nothing
Would you like to quote them here
