Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hakeem vs. Boxing Pythagoras - Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hakeem vs. Boxing Pythagoras - Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

    Moderated By: One Bad Pig

    Debate participants only. Hakeem will go first. Each participant will post three times, with Hakeem getting an additional final rebuttal. Comments may be posted here.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  • #2
    Dear all,

    I will prove that Jesus did not die in the process at all from the accounts of the Gospels.

    In this round, I will start with Mark 15:44 where we are told that Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. And the answer to why Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead is because "it was not common for persons crucified to expire under two or three days, sometimes not until the sixth or seventh" according to Barnes' Notes on the Bible "for death, by crucifixion, was a slow lingering death; persons that were in their full strength hung a great while before they expired" according to Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible where victim of crucifixion used to be tortured frequently beforehand but continued to be alive. However, Jesus was in fact on the cross only for 9 hours; therefore less than half a day, and continued to be alive after any torture he suffered.

    In addition, in John 19:29-30, Jesus was given drink and he drank it. The reason why Jesus was given drink, which he took it according to John 19:30, is (i) to relieve Jesus from pain and (2) to make him lose consciousness according to the Jewish Encyclopedia under the Article "Crucifixion" which states the following;

    "The details given in the New Testament accounts (Matt. xxvii. and parallels) of the crucifixion of Jesus agree on the whole with the procedure in vogue under Roman law. Two modifications are worthy of note: (1) In order to make him insensible to pain, a drink (ὁξος, Matt. xxvii. 34, 48; John xix. 29) was given him. This was in accordance with the humane Jewish provision (see Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 43a). The beverage was a mixture of myrrh () and wine, given "so that the delinquent might lose clear consciousness through the ensuing intoxication." (2) Contrary to the Roman practise of leaving the body on the cross, that of Jesus was removed and buried, the latter act in keeping with Jewish law and custom." In support of the above reasoning for giving Jesus drink is found on John 19:29 Bible commentaries.

    Another reason is that we are told that Jesus legs were not broken in John 19:33, when the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken in order to hasten their death, in fulfillment of the Scripture in Psalm 34, which says in verse 20 "he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken" and the reason for not breaking his legs according to the same scripture referred to in John 19:36 (Psalm 34) is found in verse 19 which says "the righteous person may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all;"

    Therefore and at the request of the Pilate in Mark 15:44, the Centurion, in addition to the above cumulative above facts, pierced Jesus side with a spear and blood and water flowed from his side in John 19:34 proving that Jesus did not die when keeping in mind that he was on the cross for short period of 9 hours with his legs not broken, while the two crossmates legs were alive until their legs were broken to hasten their death ,and drink given to him to relieve him from pain and make him lose consciousness as explained above.

    Therefore, when he found out from the Centurion, Pilate gave the body according to Mark 15:45.


    With the cumulative facts stated above, I submit to you that Jesus did not die at in the process.

    More than happy to clarify any objection of whatsoever.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hakeem View Post
      In this round, I will start with Mark 15:44 where we are told that Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. And the answer to why Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead is because "it was not common for persons crucified to expire under two or three days, sometimes not until the sixth or seventh" according to Barnes' Notes on the Bible "for death, by crucifixion, was a slow lingering death; persons that were in their full strength hung a great while before they expired" according to Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible where victim of crucifixion used to be tortured frequently beforehand but continued to be alive. However, Jesus was in fact on the cross only for 9 hours; therefore less than half a day, and continued to be alive after any torture he suffered.
      While it may have been common for crucified persons to live longer than the duration of Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion, that in no way implies that all crucifixions lasted that long; nor does it imply that a relatively short survival of that method of execution is impossible.

      Furthermore, the synoptics clearly tell us that Jesus "breathed his last" (Mark 15:39, Matthew 27:50, Luke 23:46). The Greek verb, here, is ἐκπνέω, a word which was commonly utilized as a euphemism for death in Greek literature. The Gospel of John (John 19:30) tells us that Jesus "handed over his spirit" (Gk., παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα) while he was on the cross-- another common euphemism for death, since a body without a spirit could not be alive, in the thinking of the ancients. It also tells us, explicitly, that the soldiers saw that Jesus was already dead (John 19:33; Gk., ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα).

      In addition, in John 19:29-30, Jesus was given drink and he drank it. The reason why Jesus was given drink, which he took it according to John 19:30, is (i) to relieve Jesus from pain and (2) to make him lose consciousness according to the Jewish Encyclopedia under the Article "Crucifixion" which states the following;

      "The details given in the New Testament accounts (Matt. xxvii. and parallels) of the crucifixion of Jesus agree on the whole with the procedure in vogue under Roman law. Two modifications are worthy of note: (1) In order to make him insensible to pain, a drink (ὁξος, Matt. xxvii. 34, 48; John xix. 29) was given him. This was in accordance with the humane Jewish provision (see Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 43a). The beverage was a mixture of myrrh () and wine, given "so that the delinquent might lose clear consciousness through the ensuing intoxication." (2) Contrary to the Roman practise of leaving the body on the cross, that of Jesus was removed and buried, the latter act in keeping with Jewish law and custom." In support of the above reasoning for giving Jesus drink is found on John 19:29 Bible commentaries.
      I would strongly disagree with the claim that the drink given to Jesus on the cross was meant to render him insensate to pain. "Humane Jewish provisions" described by Maimonides centuries after Jesus' death are entirely irrelevant to the actions of the non-Jewish Romans who executed Jesus. The Gospel of John describes this wine as being sour; and the Gospel of Matthew tells us that it was mixed with gall, and that Jesus did not drink it after tasting it. It seems far more likely that this wine was a part of the torture process. When a condemned prisoner complained of thirst and begged for something to drink, it would exacerbate the torture to offer that person a foul-tasting concoction of sour wine.

      Another reason is that we are told that Jesus legs were not broken in John 19:33, when the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken in order to hasten their death, in fulfillment of the Scripture in Psalm 34, which says in verse 20 "he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken" and the reason for not breaking his legs according to the same scripture referred to in John 19:36 (Psalm 34) is found in verse 19 which says "the righteous person may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all;"
      I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34. Nor do I see how it is relevant. Broken bones are not a necessary prerequisite to death.

      Therefore and at the request of the Pilate in Mark 15:44, the Centurion, in addition to the above cumulative above facts, pierced Jesus side with a spear and blood and water flowed from his side in John 19:34 proving that Jesus did not die
      I assure you that if you stab a fresh corpse in the side with a spear, blood and fluids will spill from that new wound. Blood and water flowing from the side of a wounded body does not, in any way, prove that the body is alive.

      As further evidence that the Gospels relate that Jesus, indeed, died on the cross, the synoptics (Mark 16:6; Matthew 28:6; Luke 24:6) tell us that Jesus has been "raised" from his grave (Gk., ἐγείρω) a euphemism for resurrection. In order for the claim that he was "raised" to make sense, Jesus must have been presumed to be in some state from which he then rose. Given the setting of his gravesite, and the context of the women coming to dress his corpse, the most obvious meaning for ἐγείρω is in reference to Jesus' death. Indeed, John 20:9 explicitly tells us that Jesus had "risen from the dead" (Gk., αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι), and further claims that his rise from the dead was a necessary fulfillment of Scripture.

      It seems quite clear that the gospels intend to show that Jesus suffered and died in his crucifixion. Furthermore, Hakeem's claims regarding a swoon conspiracy seem unfounded and specious. There is nothing in the text which suggests that Jesus was alive, after his crucifixion, and indeed such a view would contradict the focus of the conclusions to all four gospels. There is simply no good reason to think that the gospels claim Jesus was alive when he was removed from the cross.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • #4
        Before going to comment on your responses, I would like to ask the following questions and hope you can answer it please;

        The question: Did Jesus act like a resurrection person after he came out from the tomb? And how?

        1. Saying “while it may have been common for crucified persons to live longer than the duration of Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion, that in no way implies that all crucifixions lasted that long; nor does it imply that a relatively short survival of that method of execution is impossible” is not correct in the case of Jesus due to Pilate’s surprise in Mark 15:44 because he knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less than half a day (i.e. 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion surely lived for at least a day because it is a SLOW LINGERING DEATH ,and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken as per John 19:33.

        2. In support of the above fact, Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible on Mark 15:44 provides that "for death, by crucifixion, was a slow lingering death "

        3. Saying “the synoptics clearly tell us that Jesus "breathed his last" (Mark 15:39, Matthew 27:50, Luke 23:46). The Greek verb, here, is ἐέ, a word which was commonly utilized as a euphemism for death in Greek literature” is offset , I wrote above, by Pilate’s surprise after he had heard Jesus died in Mark 15:44 because he knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less than half a day (i.e. 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion surely lived for at least a day because it is a SLOW LINGERING DEATH ,and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken as per John 19:33.

        4. Saying “I would strongly disagree with the claim that the drink given to Jesus on the cross was meant to render him insensate to pain. "Humane Jewish provisions" described by Maimonides centuries after Jesus' death are entirely irrelevant to the actions of the non-Jewish Romans who executed Jesus. The Gospel of John describes this wine as being sour; and the Gospel of Matthew tells us that it was mixed with gall, and that Jesus did not drink it after tasting it. It seems far more likely that this wine was a part of the torture process. When a condemned prisoner complained of thirst and begged for something to drink, it would exacerbate the torture to offer that person a foul-tasting concoction of sour wine” is not correct because it goes against the testimony of the Jewish Encyclopedia quoted above (under Article “Crucifixion”) and the Bible Commentaries on John 19:29 & 30 which mention that the drink which he drank was (i) to relieve Jesus from pain and (ii) to make him lose consciousness.

        5. Saying “I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34” is not correct because any Bible ,which have reference, will reference John 19:36 to Psalm 34 which is also agreed by the Bible commentaries on John 19:33 and 36.

        6. Saying “Broken bones are not a necessary prerequisite to death” is not correct because the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken according to John 19:32; however, Jesus legs were not broken.

        7. Saying “I assure you that if you stab a fresh corpse in the side with a spear, blood and fluids will spill from that new wound. Blood and water flowing from the side of a wounded body does not, in any way, prove that the body is alive” is not true in particular in the case of Jesus in view of the facts that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less half a day while victims of crucifixion lived for at least a day it is SLOW LINGERING DEATH and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken (John 19:32); however, Jesus legs were not broken. Therefore, Pilate was surprised in Mark 15:44 to hear Jesus died. In few of the above facts, surely the blood that flowed from Jesus side is a sign of life.

        8. Saying “in order for the claim that he was "raised" to make sense, Jesus must have been presumed to be in some state from which he then rose. Given the setting of his gravesite, and the context of the women coming to dress his corpse, the most obvious meaning for ἐί is in reference to Jesus' death” is not correct unless you can provide irrefutable evidence from the Gospels that makes the probability of Jesus death in the process higher than his survival.

        9. Given the same mentioned facts that (1) Jesus was one the cross for half a day (only 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion always lived for at least a day as it is SLOW LINGERING DEATH, (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken, thus (3) Pilate was surprised to hear he died, the probability of his survival is higher than death.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hakeem View Post
          The question: Did Jesus act like a resurrection person after he came out from the tomb? And how?
          I have no idea what you mean by "act like a resurrection person." I am not aware of any distinct pattern of behavior which might be necessary to resurrection.

          1. ...Pilate’s surprise in Mark 15:44 because he knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less than half a day (i.e. 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion surely lived for at least a day because it is a SLOW LINGERING DEATH ,and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken as per John 19:33.

          3. ...Pilate’s surprise after he had heard Jesus died in Mark 15:44 because he knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less than half a day (i.e. 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion surely lived for at least a day because it is a SLOW LINGERING DEATH ,and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken as per John 19:33.

          7. ...(1) Jesus was on the cross for less half a day while victims of crucifixion lived for at least a day it is SLOW LINGERING DEATH and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken (John 19:32); however, Jesus legs were not broken. Therefore, Pilate was surprised in Mark 15:44 to hear Jesus died.

          9. ...(1) Jesus was one the cross for half a day (only 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion always lived for at least a day as it is SLOW LINGERING DEATH, (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken, thus (3) Pilate was surprised to hear he died, the probability of his survival is higher than death.
          Simply repeating the same bald assertions does not make them any more viable or convincing than they were the first time.

          2. In support of the above fact, Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible on Mark 15:44 provides that "for death, by crucifixion, was a slow lingering death"
          I honestly don't care that Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible says this; you are making a fallacious appeal to authority. I do not find the position to be tenable. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know enough about crucifixion to make judgments regarding the time necessary for a victim to die, and we certainly have no reason to think that it is impossible for a person to die from crucifixion in a matter of hours-- especially a person who had suffered traumatic beatings prior to being crucified. To make this point even more clear, I'll direct you to Maslen and Mitchell's 2006 meta-study of numerous published works of medical research on the nature of crucifixion. It is clear that anyone attempting to claim that it would be impossible for a person to die after only a few hours of crucifixion has no actual medical data to support that proposition.

          4. Saying “I would strongly disagree with the claim that the drink given to Jesus on the cross was meant to render him insensate to pain. "Humane Jewish provisions" described by Maimonides centuries after Jesus' death are entirely irrelevant to the actions of the non-Jewish Romans who executed Jesus. The Gospel of John describes this wine as being sour; and the Gospel of Matthew tells us that it was mixed with gall, and that Jesus did not drink it after tasting it. It seems far more likely that this wine was a part of the torture process. When a condemned prisoner complained of thirst and begged for something to drink, it would exacerbate the torture to offer that person a foul-tasting concoction of sour wine” is not correct because it goes against the testimony of the Jewish Encyclopedia quoted above (under Article “Crucifixion”) and the Bible Commentaries on John 19:29 & 30 which mention that the drink which he drank was (i) to relieve Jesus from pain and (ii) to make him lose consciousness.
          You are making a another fallacious argument from authority. Once again, I do not care if this is the claim of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I dispute the claim, and challenge you to find any medical support for the idea that a few drippings of wine from a spunge could render a man insensate to the pain of scourging and crucifixion.

          5. Saying “I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34” is not correct because any Bible ,which have reference, will reference John 19:36 to Psalm 34 which is also agreed by the Bible commentaries on John 19:33 and 36.
          This is your third fallacious appeal to authority. Yet again, I do not care what is proposed by some footnotes in a study Bible or by a particular commentary on the passage. I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34. If you would like to proffer such a reason, I do hope that it will be more convincing than the bare fact that both happen to be discussing situations involving broken bones.

          6. Saying “Broken bones are not a necessary prerequisite to death” is not correct because the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken according to John 19:32; however, Jesus legs were not broken.
          You seem to have a problem with selective reading, sir. John 19:33 quite explicitly states that Jesus' legs were not broken because he was already dead. Once again, there is no medical documentation which you can cite which would show that broken bones are a necessary prerequisite to death from crucifixion. As such, your argument, here, seems entirely untenable.

          8. Saying “in order for the claim that he was "raised" to make sense, Jesus must have been presumed to be in some state from which he then rose. Given the setting of his gravesite, and the context of the women coming to dress his corpse, the most obvious meaning for ἐί is in reference to Jesus' death” is not correct unless you can provide irrefutable evidence from the Gospels that makes the probability of Jesus death in the process higher than his survival.
          Jesus was scourged and crucified. All four gospels claim that he was dead on the cross-- three with a very common euphemism for death, and one with the explicit claim that he was dead. His body was then buried in a tomb, and his followers attempted to visit that tomb with the expectation that his body would be there, unable to move of its own accord. All of this seems to me to be "irrefutable evidence from the Gospels that makes the probability of Jesus death in the process higher than his survival."
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #6
            10. Saying “I have no idea what you mean by "act like a resurrection person." I am not aware of any distinct pattern of behavior which might be necessary to resurrection” is not correct and the answer is in 1 Corinthians 15. Otherwise, please let me know so I can help you.

            11. Saying “The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know enough about crucifixion to make judgments regarding the time necessary for a victim to die, and we certainly have no reason to think that it is impossible for a person to die from crucifixion in a matter of hours-- especially a person who had suffered traumatic beatings prior to being crucified” is not applicable to the case of Jesus because we told in Mark 15:44 that Pilate was surprised to hear that he died because Pilate knew well that victims of crcufixion lived for several days and Pilate observed that the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.

            12. Saying “Once again, I do not care if this is the claim of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I dispute the claim, and challenge you to find any medical support for the idea that a few drippings of wine from a spunge could render a man insensate to the pain of scourging and crucifixion” is not of any importance because according to the Jewish sources and Christian sources, this drink was designed to (1) to relieve the victim of pain and (2) to make him lose consciousness. After all, Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died in Mark 15:44.Also, I did not claim to have medical support in this regard. What I am arguing for is that due to the facts and the circumstances that took place in the process, it is more probable that Jesus survived than died.

            13. Saying “I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34” is of no importance since the authorities in the faith from the Christian scholars and translators themselves reference John 19:36 to Psalm in Bible versions and commentaries.

            14. Saying “John 19:33 quite explicitly states that Jesus' legs were not broken because he was already dead” is not true according to John 19:33 which mentions the reason for not breaking his legs is that “saw that he was dead already” meaning that he appeared dead to them.

            15. Saying “All four gospels claim that he was dead on the cross-- three with a very common euphemism for death, and one with the explicit claim that he was dead” is offset by the fact that Pilate was surprised that Jesus died as Pilate knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.

            16. Saying “His body was then buried in a tomb, and his followers attempted to visit that tomb with the expectation that his body would be there, unable to move of its own accord. All of this seems to me to be "irrefutable evidence from the Gospels that makes the probability of Jesus death in the process higher than his survival" is not correct for the following reasons;

            1) You have not produced evidence from the gospels that it is more probable for Jesus die in the process than to survive in view of the facts Jesus was taken down the cross the same he was put on the cross and his crossmates continued to be alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken,

            2) It is a fact that Jesus body did not decay according to Acts 13:37 for three days as foretold by Jesus himself, which is not possible unless he did not die because it is only the dead that experiences decay right after his death. This is supported in 2 Corinthians 4:16 which says “the outward man perish” and 1 Corinthians 15:42 says “it is sown in corruption”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hakeem View Post
              10. Saying “I have no idea what you mean by "act like a resurrection person." I am not aware of any distinct pattern of behavior which might be necessary to resurrection” is not correct and the answer is in 1 Corinthians 15. Otherwise, please let me know so I can help you.
              It actually is correct. I am not aware of any distinct pattern of behavior which might be necessary to Resurrection. If you posit that 1 Corinthians 15 provides such a description, the onus is upon you to illustrate that description, as well as to show that the authors of each of the canonical gospels shared Paul's view on this point. You have done neither of these things; nor have you even made clear how this question is at all relevant to the topic under discussion.

              11. Saying “The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know enough about crucifixion to make judgments regarding the time necessary for a victim to die, and we certainly have no reason to think that it is impossible for a person to die from crucifixion in a matter of hours-- especially a person who had suffered traumatic beatings prior to being crucified” is not applicable to the case of Jesus because we told in Mark 15:44 that Pilate was surprised to hear that he died because Pilate knew well that victims of crcufixion lived for several days and Pilate observed that the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.
              Once again, Pilate's surprise only indicates that such a short duration of crucifixion is unusual. It does not indicate that it was impossible for a victim of crucifixion to die within a few hours. Furthermore, once again, your claim that all "victims of crcufixion [sic] lived for several days" is entirely speculative and completely unsupportable from any historical or medical sources.

              12. Saying “Once again, I do not care if this is the claim of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I dispute the claim, and challenge you to find any medical support for the idea that a few drippings of wine from a spunge could render a man insensate to the pain of scourging and crucifixion” is not of any importance because according to the Jewish sources and Christian sources, this drink was designed to (1) to relieve the victim of pain and (2) to make him lose consciousness.
              Once again, this is a fallacious argument from authority. The primary sources-- that is, the gospels, themselves-- make no such claim; and the claims to this effect from later sources are speculative, dubious, and entirely unsupported by any medical data, making them fairly useless to the discussion at hand.

              13. Saying “I see no reason to think that John 19:36 is, at all, a reference to Psalm 34” is of no importance since the authorities in the faith from the Christian scholars and translators themselves reference John 19:36 to Psalm in Bible versions and commentaries.
              Again, this is an argument from authority fallacy. The fact that there exist scholars who make a particular claim does not imply that the claim is therefore correct.

              14. Saying “John 19:33 quite explicitly states that Jesus' legs were not broken because he was already dead” is not true according to John 19:33 which mentions the reason for not breaking his legs is that “saw that he was dead already” meaning that he appeared dead to them.
              You're presenting a contradictory narrative, here. On the one hand, you're claiming that the Roman guards gave Jesus a potion fully complicit in a conspiracy to remove him from the cross while he was still alive. On the other hand, you're claiming that the Roman guards believed Jesus was dead even though he wasn't. These two positions cannot stand together.

              However, more importantly, the Greek verb translated in this passage, ὁράω, does not bear the connotation which you would like it to have. It does not imply, in any way, that the thing which they saw did not reflect reality. Nor is there anything in the context of the passage which would indicate that their perception was in contradiction to the actuality of the situation. The guards saw that Jesus was already dead, and therefore had no reason to break his legs.

              15. Saying “All four gospels claim that he was dead on the cross-- three with a very common euphemism for death, and one with the explicit claim that he was dead” is offset by the fact that Pilate was surprised that Jesus died as Pilate knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.
              Your claim here makes no sense. All four gospels claim that Jesus was dead on the cross. Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead so soon, but this does not imply that he was therefore actually alive. Jesus' legs were unbroken specifically because he was already dead. He was removed from the cross and buried in a tomb, which is where dead people are placed. Women came to dress his corpse at his grave, fully expecting his dead body to be there. We are explicitly told that Jesus had "risen from the dead," which necessarily implies that he had been dead.

              There is absolutely no honest way to justify the claim that the gospels state Jesus did not die on the cross. They state explicitly that Jesus was dead on the cross.

              16. Saying “His body was then buried in a tomb, and his followers attempted to visit that tomb with the expectation that his body would be there, unable to move of its own accord. All of this seems to me to be "irrefutable evidence from the Gospels that makes the probability of Jesus death in the process higher than his survival" is not correct for the following reasons;

              1) You have not produced evidence from the gospels that it is more probable for Jesus die in the process than to survive in view of the facts Jesus was taken down the cross the same he was put on the cross and his crossmates continued to be alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken,
              Once again, the Gospels explicitly state that Jesus was dead on the cross. That alone is evidence from the Gospels which shows that it was more probable Jesus died in the process than that he survived.

              2) It is a fact that Jesus body did not decay according to Acts 13:37 for three days as foretold by Jesus himself, which is not possible unless he did not die because it is only the dead that experiences decay right after his death. This is supported in 2 Corinthians 4:16 which says “the outward man perish” and 1 Corinthians 15:42 says “it is sown in corruption”
              Even if Jesus' body did not decay for three days, that does not-- in any way-- imply that he was not dead for those three days.


              To conclude, your only arguments for the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross are specious, untenable, and largely fallacious; meanwhile, you have attempted to simply and blatantly ignore the fact that the Gospels all state that Jesus was dead on the cross. In short, you have not even come close to your stated goal of "[proving] that Jesus did not die in the process at all from the accounts of the Gospels."
              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

              Comment


              • #8
                Before going to responses, Jesus gave us a test by which we know that Jesus did not die at all. This test is found in Jesus words in Luke 13:33 where Jesus says “I must walk today, tomorrow, the day following for a prophet CANNOT DIE OUTSIDE Jerusalem” thus Jesus DID NOT DIE since his cross was OUTSIDE Jerusalem according to John 19:20.

                Saying “I am not aware of any distinct pattern of behavior which might be necessary to Resurrection” is not correct according to the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:52 which says “the dead will be raised in incorruptible” confirming Jesus in Luke 20:36 which says “Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto angels and are the children of God being the children of the resurrection”.

                Thus, the question that arises is “did Jesus act like a resurrected person; this is incorruptible; immortal; not subject to death anymore?”

                The answer to the above question is in the actions of Jesus after coming out from the tomb.
                On the way to Emmaus, Jesus was TALKING, EATING, WALKING with two of his DISCIPLES, but still these two DISCIPLES were not able to recognize it was Jesus, their master. This is confirmed more by Mark 16:12 which says that “he appeared in different FORM”. Why? Because he was in disguise to the extent his DISCIPLES were not able to recognize him. Why in disguise? Because he did not die. Had Jesus been dead and resurrected with an immortal body (1 Corinthians 15:52 & Luke 20:36), Jesus should have appeared even once to one of his alleged killers of the Jews because (1) Jesus promised to perform for them the miracle of Jonah in Matthew 12:38-40, and (2) Jesus said “I came to the sinners not the righteous”

                Saying “Once again, Pilate's surprise only indicates that such a short duration of crucifixion is unusual. It does not indicate that it was impossible for a victim of crucifixion to die within a few hours” is not correct because the two cross mates continued to be alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.

                Saying” Furthermore, once again, your claim that all "victims of crucifixion [sic] lived for several days" is entirely speculative and completely unsupportable from any historical or medical sources” is not correct unless you can quote me saying such a thing.

                What I wrote is as follows;

                “he knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for less than half a day (i.e. 9 hours) while victims of crucifixion surely lived for at least a day because it is a SLOW LINGERING DEATH ,and (2) the two crossmates were alive until their legs were broken; however, Jesus legs were not broken as per John 19:33.”

                Saying “The guards saw that Jesus was already dead, and therefore had no reason to break his legs” is offset by Pilate’s surprise after he heard Jesus died in Mark 15:44 thus ask the Centurion if Jesus died.

                Saying “All four gospels claim that Jesus was dead on the cross” is offset by the fact that Pilate was surprised that Jesus died as Pilate knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.
                Saying “Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead so soon, but this does not imply that he was therefore actually alive” is not true since it is more probable that Jesus survived given the two facts together that (1) Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.

                Saying “Jesus' legs were unbroken specifically because he was already dead” is offset, as I said, by the fact that Pilate was surprised that Jesus died as Pilate knew well that (1) Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken.
                Saying “He was removed from the cross and buried in a tomb, which is where dead people are placed” does not make him dead since his body was alive since his body did not decay according to Acts 13:37. If he died, his body would have decayed according to 1 Corinthians 15:42 “it is sown in corruption” and 2 Corinthians 4:16 “the outward man perish”

                Saying “Women came to dress his corpse at his grave, fully expecting his dead body to be there” is not true because Mark 16 tells that the women came to anoint his body (not his corpse).

                Saying “We are explicitly told that Jesus had "risen from the dead," which necessarily implies that he had been dead” is not true until you can prove with irrefutable evidence that it is more probable that Jesus died in the process in view of the facts that Jesus was on the cross for only 9 hours while victims of crucifixion lived for several days since it is slow lingering death and (2) his crossmates were alive until their legs were broken while Jesus legs were not broken – thus Pilate was surprised in Mark 15:44. In addition, his body did not decay in Acts 13:37; therefore, Jesus did not die because “the outward man perish” as per 2 Corinthians 4:16.

                Saying “Even if Jesus' body did not decay for three days, that does not-- in any way-- imply that he was not dead for those three days” is not true because 2 Corinthians 4:16 says “the outward man perish” and “it [the dead body] is sown in corruption” as in 1 Corinthians 15:42.

                Comment

                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                Working...
                X