• 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!

why did they want to crucify jesus

S

sophiegirl

New Member
They did not want to believe the truth He preached, as He urged them to repent ... on Pilate that he finally agreed to have the soldiers kill Jesus by crucifying Him.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
oldbadger said:
'My God, My Gods... why have you abandoned me?' and then got it written up into the Gospels!
Click to expand...

As against the Christian who following Paul and try to make Jesus a literal or physical god or son of god; this clearly shows that being a Jew, unlike the Christians, Jesus never believed in trinity and firmly followed Moses:

Deuteronomy - Chapter 6:4-9

4. Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
5. And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.
8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes.
9. And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy - Chapter 6 (Parshah Va'etchanan) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

It shows that Jesus was unlike Christians who follow Pauline creeds which is totally different from the prime teachings Jesus and Mary believed in.

Regards
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
paarsurrey said:
As against the Christian who following Paul and try to make Jesus a literal or physical god or son of god;
Click to expand...

You need to read more or take a class, your sort of lost here.

Paul was not widely accepted early on. He was not well known for quite some time, even then many hated him.

The theology and mythology behind the son of god started before Paul, he was only riding the wave that began before him.






this clearly shows that being a Jew, unlike the Christians, Jesus never believed in trinity and firmly followed Moses:
Click to expand...


It shows no such thing.


But the trinity was not orthodox until rougly 400 years after the movement started.

Jesus not following the trinity is common knowledge as the concept did not exist during his lifetime. :slap: Yes it was that obvious yeesh
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
You need to read more or take a class, your sort of lost here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your good advice. I am ready to learn; no harm in it.

Please reply the following little question.

Who invented the concept that if Jesus did not die on the Cross then Christianity is in vain?

Please quote from OT and or NT.

This is the concept to construct Jesus a god or son of god out of the thin air.

Others are welcome to reply and teach.

Regards
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
paarsurrey said:
.

Who invented the concept that if Jesus did not die on the Cross then Christianity is in vain?
Click to expand...


Jesus did die on the cross. That is the current state of the crucifixions historicity.

Scholars claim it as fact. As to where you have nothing credible at all!
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
outhouse said:
Jesus did die on the cross. That is the current state of the crucifixions historicity.

Scholars claim it as fact. As to where you have nothing credible at all!
Click to expand...

No they don't.

They agree that it is the best explanation of the available evidence, that is not the same thing.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Bunyip said:
No they don't.

They agree that it is the best explanation of the available evidence, that is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Stop it. Provide sources/ You post are all unsubstantiated.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accepted historic facts

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][60] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
outhouse said:
Stop it. Provide sources/ You post are all unsubstantiated.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well sure I can supply sources, as many as you could want. What I said is the truth.

William Lane Craig uses the Inference to the best evidence to argue that Jesus is historical, as do most of the scholars in the consensus.


WL Craig's Proof of the Ressurection explains exactly what I am saying.

This is why I have been trying tomdiscuss this point. When you examine the scholarly consensus, as opposed to relying on it to leverage other claims - what the scholars are in consensus about is that the historicity of Jesus is the best explanation of the available evidence, not that it is an established fact. It is an important distinction. It is an inference to the best explanation - a term you will find popping up in the works of most of those scholars on the question.
 
Last edited:
S

steeltoes

Junior member
outhouse said:
Stop it. Provide sources/ You post are all unsubstantiated.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accepted historic facts

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][60] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]
Click to expand...

Why not?

The Bible says it, Dunn believes it, that settles it.

James Dunn (theologian) He is a minister of the Church of Scotland and a Methodist local preacher.

Can we imagine Dunn explaining to his congregations that the resurrection did not happen?
 
Last edited:
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Just a few other sources for the inference to best evidence position as opposed to the HJ as fact position:

WL Craig. Did Jesus rise from the dead.

NT Wright. Jesus' ressurection and Christian origins.

J Warner Wallace. Cold Case Christianity.

These are popular works, and not meant to be a complete list by any means.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
steeltoes said:
Why not?

The Bible says it, Dunn believes it, that settles it.

James Dunn (theologian) He is a minister of the Church of Scotland and a Methodist local preacher.

Can we imagine Dunn explaining to his congregations that the resurrection did not happen?
Click to expand...

Well Bart Ehrman happens to agree with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top