> Question About Jesus's Death on the Cross

[Parture]

The Bible teaches that once your are saved, you're always saved, so any person who said they were a Christian and now Islamic, though I don't know any, would according to the Bible never have been a Christian in the first place. Think of it this way. When God gives eternal life at new birth (born-again in Christ), He had infinite foreknowledge to do this. How silly it would be if God saves then unsaves then saves then unsaves. My God is greater than that.

The bottom line is I have not heard any evidences here for Jesus not dying on the cross, not atoning for sins, not being resurrected and not being the uncreated Creator in the Trinity. Pray to God to ask Him if you have any specific evidences.

Since almost all skeptical scholars agree Paul believed he saw Jesus resurrected and was with the Apostles who said they saw Jesus resurrected then it is not tradition but documented. I am not sure how you explain this away. Self-declarations are of no avail.

As you read through the Gospel accounts such as John you will see a diary unfold. Read Paul's letters to individuals and the Churches. These are realy things happening. Paul really met the Apostles and they fellowshipped on the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus they said they had eyewitness claims to.

Jesus did not needing saving, for He made Himself out to be the Savior, Creator and Almighty God.

Mohammed never claimed to be God. Jesus claimed to be God.

There is no possibility that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion, because 3 days later He would have been all deformed and barely even able to walk if at all, but His appearance was perfect in the eyes of the disciples. The guards would lose their lives if they let Jesus live. If you were to poke a hole in your chest cavity and water came out you would die. I don't recommend you do it, even as a suicide mass murderer for Islam.

Historical accounts are in agreement and there is actually de-evolution, because originally it was the resurrection of Jesus bodily, but with Paul, the resurrection appearance to him was somewhat different.

I am good with God because He won't judge me for staying with the evidence. But you might be in trouble because six centuries later you don't have any specific evidence, but it is just some guy in a cave all by himself who told you some things, and who was a murderer who killed many people, whereas Jesus never killed anybody. Pray to God with an honest heart if you think this is right.

[Assad]

Parture,

I must say that your posts are funny , unintellegent compared to what average christian knows.

Just because matthew said something isnt the prove that it is really a fact.

Also Although the bible was written a bit more later then 45 years after Jesus death. Why did God wait for 20 years to "inspire" the writers ? Why not immediately after Jesus death or 1 or 2 or 5 or 10years after death ? Was God fabricating a story ? Or was paul cooking the story? :)

As earlier said , dont expect reply for me unless I get time to do so.

Regards

[Assad]

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ





Disclaimer

This "FAQ", often referred to as the "Historicity of Jesus" FAQ, is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue. In order to do this, one should consider not only these texts, but also the canonical and non-canonical Christian texts, Jewish texts, and archeological evidence. In fact, one can be a completely orthodox Christian, perhaps even a fundamentalist, and agree with virtually everything in this document. The purpose of this document is to partially answer the question, "To what extent are the events described in the New Testament corroborated by contemporary non-Christian texts?" I argue that the answer to this question is "not much"--at the very best, some of the texts I consider support the proposition that Jesus existed and perhaps was executed by the Romans. They do not prove that he performed any miracles, rose from the dead, or did anything else ascribed to him in the New Testament. At worst, ancient texts tell us nothing new, and provide no independent support for the New Testament accounts. The question of whether the Christian sources even need independent confirmation is beyond the purview of this document--I do not argue for or against the accuracy of the New Testament accounts here.
References to Jesus of Nazareth in Ancient Non-Christian Literature

Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the writings of Josephus and on pagan writers. I have omitted discussion of references to Jesus in the Talmud and other Jewish religious writings, as well as the gnostic Christian texts. While these writings are themselves important, they tend to contradict New Testament accounts, and so are seldom cited by Christian apologists.
Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been changed by unscrupulous copyists. Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in interpreting material.
A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For example, Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign. Likewise, Josephus' account of first century Palestine devotes much more attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.
Finally, some comment must be made on the issue of "independent confirmation". Even if a reference to Jesus in a text is authentic, and not a later Christian insertion, that text may not provide any new information. For instance, if a writer is merely repeating what he was told by Christians, who in turn derive their information from the New Testament, then the text in question does not provide independent confirmation of the New Testament, as the claims involved are ultimately derived from the NT. An example of what might constitute independent confirmation would be an eyewitness account by a non-Christian author, or an entry in a Roman legal document. These sources would presumably not be mere repetitions of what Christians believed to have happened, but instead might offer actual independent confirmation.
I am indebted to Michael Martin's "The Case Against Christianity" for much of the information presented here. While I disagree with some of Martin's conclusions, his work presents a starting point for consideration of the sources. I am particularly thankful to the following alt.atheism readers, who contributed both information and criticism of this work: Geoff Arnold, Ray Ingles, Jeff Lowder, James Lippard, Jim Perry, mathew@mantis.co.uk, worley@cs.ucf.edu, joonasms@evitech.fi, and kbraatz@delphi.com. Any errors in this text are mine, not theirs.
Scott Oser
8/15/1994

Josephus and Jesus

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.
Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.

Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:

"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.

Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.
More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:

1. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
2. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
3. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

Tacitus and Jesus

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.
Suetonius and Jesus

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)

Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:

1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.

Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
Thallus and Jesus

In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.
Pliny the Younger and Jesus

Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.

[salman]

Originally Posted by Parture

The Bible teaches that once your are saved, you're always saved, so any person who said they were a Christian and now Islamic, though I don't know any, would according to the Bible never have been a Christian in the first place. Think of it this way. When God gives eternal life at new birth (born-again in Christ), He had infinite foreknowledge to do this. How silly it would be if God saves then unsaves then saves then unsaves. My God is greater than that.

there're many Christians who embraced Islam and here is an example of it: A Story of a new Muslim

Rest of your response only proves that God of the Bible forces people to believe in Christianity.

Originally Posted by Parture

The bottom line is I have not heard any evidences here for Jesus not dying on the cross, not atoning for sins, not being resurrected and not being the uncreated Creator in the Trinity. Pray to God to ask Him if you have any specific evidences.

I've already responded to your question and a detail response to your other article will be posted later.

Originally Posted by Parture

Since almost all skeptical scholars agree Paul believed he saw Jesus resurrected and was with the Apostles who said they saw Jesus resurrected then it is not tradition but documented. I am not sure how you explain this away. Self-declarations are of no avail.

if i'm not wrong, Paul met Apostels much later, how could he then have seen Jesus (peace be upon him) being resurrected? Again, ressurction is only possible if a person died and no apostle saw him dying.

Originally Posted by Parture

Jesus did not needing saving, for He made Himself out to be the Savior, Creator and Almighty God.

so according to you your god died on the cross!

Originally Posted by Parture

Mohammed never claimed to be God. Jesus claimed to be God.

so what? Praise to be Allah Ta'ala; He isn't like His creation, He is in no need of His creation and nor He is within is His creation or reincarnated in His creation. According to you Jesus (peace be upon him) was 100% God and 100% human which is self contradictory. On top of that, you believe that your god died on the cross. Sorry, we don't need a god who dies!

Originally Posted by Parture

There is no possibility that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion

no one saw him dying; what you're saying is only an assumption.

Originally Posted by Parture

because 3 days later He would have been all deformed and barely even able to walk if at all, but His appearance was perfect in the eyes of the disciples.

note the emphasized phrases: did he look completely healthy? He looked fine in the eyes of his disciples because they were expecting him to be dead. This prove is actually against you.

Originally Posted by Parture

The guards would lose their lives if they let Jesus live. If you were to poke a hole in your chest cavity and water came out you would die. I don't recommend you do it, even as a suicide mass murderer for Islam.

Again, assumptions, possibilities and generalization. Don't forget that Biblical traditions regarding Jesus's (peace be upon him) resurrection are evolved over time and as we move from Gospel of Matthew to Gospel of Mark, John, we see the development in the story and improvement of torture. Why aren't all the Gospels consistent in narrating the event?

Originally Posted by Parture

Historical accounts are in agreement and there is actually de-evolution, because originally it was the resurrection of Jesus bodily, but with Paul, the resurrection appearance to him was somewhat different.

I am good with God because He won't judge me for staying with the evidence. But you might be in trouble because six centuries later you don't have any specific evidence as these. Pray to God with an honest heart if you think this is right.

what you're relaying on is the inconsistently narrated story and historians concluding his death on the cross based on assumption that he must have died.

@acid
bro, according to majority of historical evidences, Gospel of Mark is the first Gospel to be written and as early as 55 AD. Most historians say that Mark's Gospel is attributed to him but it was written by anonymous people.

wallahu a'lam (and Allah knows best)

[Assad]

Hi there

All the above posts shows that you have no evidence of Jesus ( peace be upon him ) death on cross . You havent even bothered to reply to my post regarding the biblical verses which goes AGAINST Jesus dying on cross! .

[Assad]

You Trinitarians are infact hypocrite that you hang and adore the cross . cursed by the cross if any god would have DIED on it! but you infact adore the cross on which ur god DIED? The cross on which you god bore pain ? and his hands and feet got nailed and you adore that cross?

Now you would say that " oh actually we keep cross with us as a reminder of jesus suffering" lol... is that a reminder?wouldnt just an image of god show u the reminder of the pain ? why the cross? Its totally illogical like the rest of the Christanity.

[Parture]

Acid,

The proof that Christians use is not that of Matthew. Lots of Christians like to use what is called the Minimal Facts Approach. What this says, is that we don't need to consider the inerrancy of the whole Bible, but only evaluate that which most skeptical scholars agree on which is that Paul genuinely believed he saw Jesus resurrected and was with the Apostles who said they saw Jesus resurrected too in various group settings. Because modern psychology says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, how do you explain away what most skeptical scholars agree on? I think this is the prescient issue. Why don't you pray to God if you can find an answer and maybe there is no answer. I for one have not been able to explain it away and all the Christian writers I read as well as skeptical writers don't have an alternate viable explanation either. I think there is something to that.

Whether someone has a cross in their midst or not is really not that important to me. What matters to me is that God entered into His creation to atone for my sins on the cross, for which only God could do, because only God is sinlessly perfect as the perfect sacrifice to pay the ransom I could not pay. What a wonderful loving God. Pray to God to ask Him if He did the right thing and if it is loving enough for you to shed His blood for your sins.

Personally, I would not want to live in a world where the Creator of the universe did not personally reveal Himself in His Son. Imagine creating the universe and then to remain distantly afar from us. So the Father agreed with the Son that the Son would be exalted above all men as Lord and Savior and pay for the sins of all the world, and by His resurrection the Holy Spirit come to indwell those who receive Him. What man could not do in his corrupted flesh, God could provide a solution by our dying on the cross with Him. Pray to God to ask Him if He will help you to show you that though you are not selfless enough to do this, may He bring you to His sure death on the cross with Him, to put to naught the deeds of your flesh.

Why don't you agree with what most skeptical scholars agree that Paul was being genuine in saying he was with the apostles and they all said they saw Jesus resurrected? If they consider this evidence (Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15) and they are far more knowledgeable than you, then why not come in agreement at least with those who are skeptical?

[Parture]

Originally Posted by salman

there're many Christians who embraced Islam and here is an example of it: A Story of a new Muslim

Understand your contradiction. A Christian in the Bible is defined as once-saved-always-saved, so it is illogical to say someone who was a Christian and then no longer is a Christian but something else. The Bible tells us that person was never a Christian to begin with. Pray to God to draw you into being honest about this matter. I know you want to show otherwise, but if the Bible says by definition what a Christian is, then for you to define a Christian differently may be showing you are disingenuousness and not an honest heart for the truth. Come to the table honestly and accept the definition of what is. In Islam you can lose your faith, but if you are a Christian, that is truly born-again, you can never lose the faith. It is impossible, because your choice was a choice for God for forever! It was a not a choice for to be saved with an option to get out later. That is true birth: once-saved-always-saved.

Rest of your response only proves that God of the Bible forces people to believe in Christianity.

How so?

if i'm not wrong, Paul met Apostels much later, how could he then have seen Jesus (peace be upon him) being resurrected? Again, ressurction is only possible if a person died and no apostle saw him dying.

John, the disciple whom Jesus loved most, saw Jesus die on the cross with his mother Mary and the other women. This is recorded in Scripture. Many disciples fleed because of fear of their own deaths for being followers of Jesus, but they reunited when they saw Him resurrected. I don't think Jesus' mother lied about seeing Jesus die on the cross, nor John who wrote the book of John, the epistles by John and Revelation. Paul saw Jesus resurrected but a little differently, because Jesus had already been raised to the throne so Jesus came before John in a different format.

so according to you your god died on the cross!

Not any god, but God, yes. God can die and be resurreced because God is God. It's like if you were playing a computer game and your player character died, but was resurrected. For God it is easy to do and it is easy for God to resurrect everyone of us. In fact, he will resurrect you whether you are saved or not, for there is heaven and hell.

so what? Praise to be Allah Ta'ala; He isn't like His creation, He is in no need of His creation and nor He is within is His creation or reincarnated in His creation. According to you Jesus (peace be upon him) was 100% God and 100% human which is self contradictory. On top of that, you believe that your god died on the cross. Sorry, we don't need a god who dies!

God created the universe for His own needs out of His own glory. He created man in His image to walk with and be with and fellowship with all eternity, those who love Him. Those who don't will be eternally separated in Hell for all eternity. There is no contradiction. God can make himself fully man and still remain in Jesus the fullness of the Godhead bodily. What scholars say about this is that Jesus emptied Himself of His independent attributes in the Trinity to be in the likeness of flesh in order to be one of us and make himself a perfect match so His sacrifice would be a perfect sacrifice for us. It is most wonderful and beautiful.

If you don't have a God who dies on the cross, you don't have a perfect sacrifice and without a perfect sacrifice your sins are not perfectly atoned for. If they are not perfectly atoned for they are not perfectly paid for. If they are not perfectly paid for they are not dealt with perfectly and sin imperfectly dealt with is sin that leads to death and the second death which is hell. Pray to God if you want this.

no one saw him dying; what you're saying is only an assumption.

The Bible records who saw Him die, so that is the evidence we have, and yours would be assumption because you reject it even though you can't overturn this evidence.

note the emphasized phrases: did he look completely healthy? He looked fine in the eyes of his disciples because they were expecting him to be dead. This prove is actually against you.

A resurrected God would not be a stumbly sickly testimony of resurrection, but just some guy who somehow survived the cross to everyone's surprise. His heart stopped and could it have started up again an hour later? Who knows, but he certainly wouldn't have been the idea of a resurrected Savior with healed wounds and no scars except a small one left in his hand or wrist. If someone came back from the dead and looked all beat up, that to me would not be a testimony to anything, but what the Apostles saw was something of a resurrected Savior miraculously healed, walking upright, without scars down to his bone. Think about that. Ask God about it, and let Him give you light to know if it is true or not.

Again, assumptions, possibilities and generalization. Don't forget that Biblical traditions regarding Jesus's (peace be upon him) resurrection are evolved over time and as we move from Gospel of Matthew to Gospel of Mark, John, we see the development in the story and improvement of torture. Why aren't all the Gospels consistent in narrating the event?

The differences in the gospels are testimony to independent accounts and not copied from one another; even so, without contradictions. The gospel accounts are finalized later by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; whereas, the earliest texts scholars agree on were 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which you see a less strict bodily resurrection, so that is de-evolution of the resurrection of Jesus, because it is less specifically detailed as bodily. I am not sure how you overcome this de-evolution of the gospel account. From the earliest accounts to the later accounts is a clear de-evolution in terms of the earliest events ever recorded. These matters precede yours.

what you're relaying on is the inconsistently narrated story and historians concluding his death on the cross based on assumption that he must have died.

None say there is just an assumption, eyewitnesses were given of his death and the events that lead up to his death. Paul said he me with the apostles who acknowledged Jesus' death on the cross. The Jews who had him put to death through the Romans don't deny this either; nor does Tacitus, a Roman historian. Their records are clear Jesus died. To deny Jesus died, are you you are being honest with yourself? Pray to God if you are being honest or not.

@acid
bro, according to majority of historical evidences, Gospel of Mark is the first Gospel to be written and as early as 55 AD. Most historians say that Mark's Gospel is attributed to him but it was written by anonymous people.

wallahu a'lam (and Allah knows best)

It is believed Mark wrote Mark as not only that guy mentioned without a name who was in their midst, but also because of the many travels of Mark with Paul and Barnabas, and Mark himself was a little less verbose and complex in keeping with the gospel of Mark. We have every reason to believe Mark wrote Mark and no reason to think otherwise.

Pray to God to ask Him where just the evidence leads you and I am confident He will show it to you. Pray to God to ask Him if it is acceptable just to deny something without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

[Parture]

Regarding the early 17 non-Christian writings about Jesus, speaking of a distinct individual of the Christian faith in which Christianity is based on, realize the most important point of all that they are not that important anyway. Though they show that the non-Christian world certainly acknowledges this Jesus character, whether they did or not is not that important. Why?

Because, the strongest evidence is that of those who spent personal time with Jesus and testified as eyewitnesses to His 3 year ministry, bodily resurrection and the 40 days in His resurrection before being raised up. What matters is most skeptical scholars agree that Paul was being honest about being with the Apostles James, Peter and John, they multiply attested to seeing Jesus resurrected and the Church was built on their work of this belief including their martyrdoms. Paul even said in 1 Cor. 15 that there are still many alive whom can testify to these things and if he is lying, they can certainly come forward and speak against it, but guess what? None did, even of the 500 who were with Jesus one time.

The problem you are faced with is in explaining this away specifically. Nobody has ever been able to do so to my knowledge, so why don't you pray to God and ask Him to do so if it can be done and if not why doesn't He do so, and if it can't be done, what are the implications of it?

I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Then you come to realize too that it seems a bit strange that you can rationalize away every claim of Jesus in those early 17 non-Christian writings about Jesus. Think of it this way. Let it show you how your flesh can actually rationalize anything. This is why I say it is an honest heart that God loves and non-assuming is part of that honest heart. Speculating away what is clearly written is perhaps not very genuine, especially when there is really nothing to support such ideas except your own wild imagination.

Though there was some concern for Jesus by non-Christians, for the most part Christianity was just some cult, not understood or considered of any significance really, so to excpect more than those 17 earliest sources is not really warranted. But oh how it grew to the point where today, 1 in 3 people call themselves Christians based on the evidence to have faith. The freest and widely published book in the world is the Bible in more languages than any other book. Just like Jesus who was the freest man who ever lived!

[Parture]

Originally Posted by Acid

Pliny the Younger and Jesus

Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.

Let's start with one case, fully cover it and then move onto another case, because I feel you guys are already inundated with too much to handle.

Pliny the Younger wrote, "They (the Christians)...to Christ, as to a god".

It's interesting, only in Christianity do you have God mercifully entering into His creation to atone for sins. It doesn't get more loving and personal than that.

Trajan responded, "Christians...these people...pardoned...when denies himself to be a Christian".

Hadrian talked about, "charges against the Christians".

As you know the 2nd century was the time of great martyrdom of the Church.

The stark contrast is in dying for your beliefs as a martyr because you believe those who were to have had eyewitness testimonies of Jesus' death and resurrection as compared to dying for a faith that you have no evidence for specifically in terms of eyewitness accounts of their gods. After all they don't even come in person like Jesus did.

Three steps are clear to me: (1) from the first eyewitness accounts and their martyrdoms to (2) those they knew in the second generation of apostles who died for the same faith and then (3) there were also those martyred in third generation martyrdom who knew the second generation personally.

I am not sure how you explain this away. Have you asked God if this can even be explained away and if not what that is leading you to?