G
- Status
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
So, I guess the failure of the sun and the lunar eclipse that took place during the crucifixion was just a mere co-incidence.
Isn’t that strange; The God created universe responded when the crucifixion took place, but somehow the idea of Jesus dying on the cross is a foolish one.
I don’t think so.
Jesus did die on the cross, at 3PM on Friday 3rd April 33AD.
Isn’t that strange; The God created universe responded when the crucifixion took place, but somehow the idea of Jesus dying on the cross is a foolish one.
I don’t think so.
Jesus did die on the cross, at 3PM on Friday 3rd April 33AD.
D
dranzal
Guest
That is truly unfortunate.
No crucifixion means no resurrection. Further, this means that the apostles died for a faith based on delusion (since they claim to have witnessed the Ascension). It means that the Gospel writers were liars willing to defend their lies to the death. John’s lies are the most graphic as he is the only one to claim to have been at the cross when Jesus died. Please tell me what they would gain from those lies. It did not make them wealthy. It did not ensure long life.
If anyone here wishes to assert that the Bible is corrupt and maybe the Gospel writers did not write what they did indeed write, back it up. Provide proof that the early Christian church did not have a sacrificed saviour. Provide proof that they did not really witness an Ascension and write about it. Provide proof that the core belief of all Christian faiths is based on corrupted passages of the Bible.
Without the supreme sacrifice of love (God willingly dying for the redemption of His people) there is no salvation.
NO CROSS, NO CROWN. PERIOD.
:byzsoc:
No crucifixion means no resurrection. Further, this means that the apostles died for a faith based on delusion (since they claim to have witnessed the Ascension). It means that the Gospel writers were liars willing to defend their lies to the death. John’s lies are the most graphic as he is the only one to claim to have been at the cross when Jesus died. Please tell me what they would gain from those lies. It did not make them wealthy. It did not ensure long life.
If anyone here wishes to assert that the Bible is corrupt and maybe the Gospel writers did not write what they did indeed write, back it up. Provide proof that the early Christian church did not have a sacrificed saviour. Provide proof that they did not really witness an Ascension and write about it. Provide proof that the core belief of all Christian faiths is based on corrupted passages of the Bible.
Without the supreme sacrifice of love (God willingly dying for the redemption of His people) there is no salvation.
NO CROSS, NO CROWN. PERIOD.
:byzsoc:
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
It would also mean that Jesus is a deciever.
John 2
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
John 2
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
D
dolphinlove
Guest
Not only that, they will be calling God a liar. 
Read the following passage out of Matthew:
16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and (AF)he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “(AG)This is **My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Now this is God, God **himself **saying this is his beloved Son.
Jesus DID die on the cross for us. It says so in the bible.
Read Matthew 26 till then end of Matthew, I think the story is clear.**
Read the following passage out of Matthew:
16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and (AF)he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “(AG)This is **My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Now this is God, God **himself **saying this is his beloved Son.
Jesus DID die on the cross for us. It says so in the bible.
Read Matthew 26 till then end of Matthew, I think the story is clear.**
M
mercygate
Guest
If Jesus did not die on the cross, then who did?
They put SOMEBODY in that tomb. And that same somebody was seen walking, talking, eating, and drinking with his most intimate friends – who could not have failed to recognize him – just three days later. He also showed them his wounds and assured them that he was flesh and bone.
If Jesus did not die on the cross but lied about it, then he is a deceiver and no true prophet.
They put SOMEBODY in that tomb. And that same somebody was seen walking, talking, eating, and drinking with his most intimate friends – who could not have failed to recognize him – just three days later. He also showed them his wounds and assured them that he was flesh and bone.
If Jesus did not die on the cross but lied about it, then he is a deceiver and no true prophet.
J
jimmy85
Guest
Well muslims claim that Paul made up the whole thing or something like that. However that dosent explain the hundrests of eye witneses of Jesus, that died in martyrdom only because they claimed that Jesus was God.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
If Jesus didn’t die on the Cross, why didn’t the Jews just say that this guy Jesus of Nazareth never existed or this guy Jesus of Nazareth survived the crucifixion!
Instead, the Jews, who had every reason to point out the obvious if it were true, claim that the tomb was empty and that the body was stolen.
Instead, the Jews, who had every reason to point out the obvious if it were true, claim that the tomb was empty and that the body was stolen.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi everybody here!
One of my Catholic friends here has sent a question to me in the PM, I don’t mention his name, and perhaps he does not want it to be disclosed.
Anyway, the question is:
“If Jesus did not die on the cross, then who did?”
They put SOMEBODY in that tomb. And that same somebody was seen walking, talking, eating, and drinking with his most intimate friends – who could not have failed to recognize him – just three days later. He also showed them his wounds and assured them that he was flesh and bone.
If Jesus did not die on the cross but lied about it, then he is a deceiver and no true prophet.”
Answer: Your question has already been answered by the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi, about hundred years ago, and I will give an excerpt from his book on the thread (Please see my next post). Kindly read the book “Jesus in India” it is an interesting read and a pioneer book on the topic.
You know, we Muslims respect and love Jesus and his mother Mary.
Your remarks about Jesus at the end of your post ( the words underlined) in fact hurt me, though it is your right to say anything about anybody, but your question was already complete without the remarks. Please don’t mind I have pointed it out frankly.
Rest I will answer on the thread.
Thanks
The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908.
One of my Catholic friends here has sent a question to me in the PM, I don’t mention his name, and perhaps he does not want it to be disclosed.
Anyway, the question is:
“If Jesus did not die on the cross, then who did?”
They put SOMEBODY in that tomb. And that same somebody was seen walking, talking, eating, and drinking with his most intimate friends – who could not have failed to recognize him – just three days later. He also showed them his wounds and assured them that he was flesh and bone.
If Jesus did not die on the cross but lied about it, then he is a deceiver and no true prophet.”
Answer: Your question has already been answered by the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi, about hundred years ago, and I will give an excerpt from his book on the thread (Please see my next post). Kindly read the book “Jesus in India” it is an interesting read and a pioneer book on the topic.
You know, we Muslims respect and love Jesus and his mother Mary.
Your remarks about Jesus at the end of your post ( the words underlined) in fact hurt me, though it is your right to say anything about anybody, but your question was already complete without the remarks. Please don’t mind I have pointed it out frankly.
Rest I will answer on the thread.
Thanks
The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
The PromisedMessiahImamMahdi responds the question:
On this point the Bible has more evidence which I proceed to state below. There is the statement of Jesus: ‘But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee’ (Matthew: chapter 26, verse 32). This verse clearly shows that Jesus, after he had come out of the tomb, went to Galilee and not to heaven. Jesus’ words ‘After I am risen’ do not mean his rising up alive after he was dead; rather, as in the eyes of the Jews and the common people he had died on the Cross, he used words beforehand consistent with what they were to think of him in the future, and indeed, the man who was placed on the Cross, in whose hands and feet nails had been driven till he had fainted from pain, had become as good as dead; if such a man was saved from such a calamity and if he recovered his senses it would not be an exaggeration on his part to say that he had come to life again. There is no doubt that after so much suffering, Jesus’ escape from death was a miracle; it was no ordinary event. But to think that he had died is wrong. It is true that in the books of the New Testament words of this kind occur, but this is a mistake of the writers of those books, just as they had committed mistakes in recording several other historical events. Commentators who have made researches into these books admit that the books of the New Testament have two parts: (1) the spiritual instruction received by the disciples from Jesus (peace be on him) which is the essence of the teachings of the Gospel; (2) historical events – like the genealogy of Jesus; his arrest and his being beaten; the existence in his time of a miraculous pond, etc. These, the writers recorded by themselves; they were not revealed; rather, they were set down in accordance with the writer’s own ideas. In some places there are undue exaggerations, as where it is stated that if all the miracles and works of Jesus were recorded in books, the earth would not be able to accommodate these books. How exaggerated is this statement!
Apart from this, it is not against usages of speech to describe the great calamity which had befallen Jesus as death. When a man, having passed through a life and death experience, is ultimately saved from it, the common speech of all peoples expresses the idea by the idiomatic expression – ‘he was given a new life’, and no people to whatever country they may belong would demur at expressing that idea in this way.
The PromisedMessiahImamMahdi responds the question:
On this point the Bible has more evidence which I proceed to state below. There is the statement of Jesus: ‘But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee’ (Matthew: chapter 26, verse 32). This verse clearly shows that Jesus, after he had come out of the tomb, went to Galilee and not to heaven. Jesus’ words ‘After I am risen’ do not mean his rising up alive after he was dead; rather, as in the eyes of the Jews and the common people he had died on the Cross, he used words beforehand consistent with what they were to think of him in the future, and indeed, the man who was placed on the Cross, in whose hands and feet nails had been driven till he had fainted from pain, had become as good as dead; if such a man was saved from such a calamity and if he recovered his senses it would not be an exaggeration on his part to say that he had come to life again. There is no doubt that after so much suffering, Jesus’ escape from death was a miracle; it was no ordinary event. But to think that he had died is wrong. It is true that in the books of the New Testament words of this kind occur, but this is a mistake of the writers of those books, just as they had committed mistakes in recording several other historical events. Commentators who have made researches into these books admit that the books of the New Testament have two parts: (1) the spiritual instruction received by the disciples from Jesus (peace be on him) which is the essence of the teachings of the Gospel; (2) historical events – like the genealogy of Jesus; his arrest and his being beaten; the existence in his time of a miraculous pond, etc. These, the writers recorded by themselves; they were not revealed; rather, they were set down in accordance with the writer’s own ideas. In some places there are undue exaggerations, as where it is stated that if all the miracles and works of Jesus were recorded in books, the earth would not be able to accommodate these books. How exaggerated is this statement!
Apart from this, it is not against usages of speech to describe the great calamity which had befallen Jesus as death. When a man, having passed through a life and death experience, is ultimately saved from it, the common speech of all peoples expresses the idea by the idiomatic expression – ‘he was given a new life’, and no people to whatever country they may belong would demur at expressing that idea in this way.
G
guanophore
Guest
Hooey!
P
paarsurrey
Guest
After all that has been stated, it should be kept in mind that in the gospel of Barnabas, which must be available in the British Museum, it is stated that Jesus was not crucified, not did he die on the Cross. Now we can very well say that though this book is not included in the gospels and has been rejected summarily, yet there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in which the other gospels were written. Is it not open to us to regard this ancient book as a book of history of ancient times and to make use of it as a book of history? Does it not follow from this book that at least at the time when the event of the Cross took place, people were not unanimous as to Jesus’ dying on the Cross? Again, apart from this, when in the four gospels themselves there are such metaphors as the one about a dead person, that he is not dead but asleep, it is not beyond reason to suppose that a state of swoon might be described as a state of death. I have already stated that a prophet cannot lie. Jesus compared his three days’ stay in the tomb to the three days of Jonah in the belly of the whale. This only shows that just as Jonah remained alive for three days in the belly of the whale, so did Jesus remain alive for three days in the tomb. The Jewish tombs of those days were not like the tombs of to-day; they were roomy and had an opening on one side, which was covered with a big stone. And, presently, I shall prove in due course that Jesus’ tomb which has been recently discovered in Srinagar in Kashmir is of the same type as the one in which Jesus was placed in a state of swoon.
In short, the verse I have just quoted shows that Jesus after coming out of the tomb went to Galilee. The gospel of St. Mark says that after coming out of the tomb he was seen going on the road to Galilee, and ultimately he met the eleven disciples when they were at their meal; he showed them his hands and feet which were wounded and they thought that he was perhaps a spirit. Then he said to them:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.*
He took from them boiled fish and a piece of honeycomb and ate them in their presence. **
These verses show that it is certain that Jesus never went to heaven; rather, coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; – like an ordinary man, in normal clothes, with a human body. If he had been resurrected after death, how was it that this body of spirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted upon him on the Cross? What need had he to eat? And if he required food then, he must be in need of food even now.
*Luke 24:39.
**Luke 24:42, 43
Thanks
In short, the verse I have just quoted shows that Jesus after coming out of the tomb went to Galilee. The gospel of St. Mark says that after coming out of the tomb he was seen going on the road to Galilee, and ultimately he met the eleven disciples when they were at their meal; he showed them his hands and feet which were wounded and they thought that he was perhaps a spirit. Then he said to them:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.*
He took from them boiled fish and a piece of honeycomb and ate them in their presence. **
These verses show that it is certain that Jesus never went to heaven; rather, coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; – like an ordinary man, in normal clothes, with a human body. If he had been resurrected after death, how was it that this body of spirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted upon him on the Cross? What need had he to eat? And if he required food then, he must be in need of food even now.
*Luke 24:39.
**Luke 24:42, 43
Thanks
A
adrift
Guest
Why should his made up story be believed.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Acts 1:10-11
The Romans were experts. Your scenario does not make sense
Jesus was scourged very few lived through it. Than He was crucified none live through that but you say that a few days latter He was well enough to walk and eat. Only through being raised from the dead transformed in a glorified body could this have happened.
G
guanophore
Guest
After all that has been stated, it should be kept in mind that in the gospel of Barnabas, which must be available in the British Museum, it is stated that Jesus was not crucified, not did he die on the Cross. Now we can very well say that though this book is not included in the gospels and has been rejected summarily, yet there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in which the other gospels were written. Is it not open to us to regard this ancient book as a book of history of ancient times and to make use of it as a book of history? Does it not follow from this book that at least at the time when the event of the Cross took place, people were not unanimous as to Jesus’ dying on the Cross?
Yes. Fortunately Jesus left His Holy Spirit to guide His followers into all truth, and they recognized that the gospel of Barnabas was not accurate.
paarsurrey;2403914:
Certainly reasonable. However, we know that is not the case, as Jesus left us a prefiguring in the raising of Lazarus, who had also “fallen asleep” but had been dead for four days, so that there would be an odor.
paarsurrey, Jesus is God Himself, and to the extent that He is divine, He cannot “die” from the human point of view. His human nature suffered death, but His divine nature remained in the state of beatific vision.
Well, good luck there.
Jesus showed Himself for 40 days prior to ascending to heaven, and you cannot claim that this passage “proves” that he went to Galilee, without accepting the following text that He ascended into heaven . Either all of it is true, or none.
Jesus was not an ordinary man, but he did wear normal clothes, and had a human body. Rather, He was previously in the form of God (being divine) but did not count equality with God something to be grasped at, but humbling Himself, He became a man, born of woman, and became flesh. He is God in the flesh.
Jesus did not require food, even prior to His death. He had meat to eat the world knows not of. He chose to eat food so that he could demonstrate His humanity.
A
adrift
Guest
[What do we know about the “Gospel of Barnabas”?
](http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Barnabas/index.html)
R
Renton405
Guest
I don’t think muslims want people to have salvation… Mohammed knew that if he denied the cross and the ressurection he would totally take away all of christianity… So those were the things he concentrated on…That is truly unfortunate.
No crucifixion means no resurrection. Further, this means that the apostles died for a faith based on delusion (since they claim to have witnessed the Ascension). It means that the Gospel writers were liars willing to defend their lies to the death. John’s lies are the most graphic as he is the only one to claim to have been at the cross when Jesus died. Please tell me what they would gain from those lies. It did not make them wealthy. It did not ensure long life.
If anyone here wishes to assert that the Bible is corrupt and maybe the Gospel writers did not write what they did indeed write, back it up. Provide proof that the early Christian church did not have a sacrificed saviour. Provide proof that they did not really witness an Ascension and write about it. Provide proof that the core belief of all Christian faiths is based on corrupted passages of the Bible.
Without the supreme sacrifice of love (God willingly dying for the redemption of His people) there is no salvation.
NO CROSS, NO CROWN. PERIOD.
Its funny though… Since Mohammed gets many of his writings from apocryphical writings, such as Jesus changing the clay birds into real ones, and Jesus talking as an infant…These are all found in non-canonical Infancy Gospels… Mohammed was a plagirizer in addition to his pedofilia…
Problem is, is that there are so many non-canonical material written on his crucifiction that its impossible to not notice. Even hard hearted Romans and and Jews wrote about his death, like Josepheus, the Talmud, Tactus, Pliny, etc…Theres just too much evidence, and then add that on with the 4 gospels and all the ressurection accounts… It really puts the muslims in a bad position and almost makes them look like fools…
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
They also served another purpose, they made Thomas believe. I like to believe that he left the wounds for more than just one believer, though.
I don’t ever remember the text saying that he needed to eat. But his eating served a purpose of sparking a memory to his apostles. For when they saw how he broke the bread, they knew who they were with.
Must he still be in need of food? Are you saying that if God made a man - who was also his son - rise from the dead and make him ascend into heaven that he couldn’t make him no longer need food?
D
dranzal
Guest
It has been speculated that our glorified bodies will bear the marks/scars of things that occurred in our lives if those marks are evidence of glorifying God (ie martyrdom). They would not be painful or ugly, but a further glorification.
They also served another purpose, they made Thomas believe. I like to believe that he left the wounds for more than just one believer, though.
I don’t ever remember the text saying that he needed to eat. But his eating served a purpose of sparking a memory to his apostles. For when they saw how he broke the bread, they knew who they were with.
Must he still be in need of food? Are you saying that if God made a man - who was also his son - rise from the dead and make him ascend into heaven that he couldn’t make him no longer need food?
We have our only knowledge of what our glorified bodies will be like from these passages after Jesus’ death. We know He did eat. It nowhere claims that He needed to eat. Throughout history, mealtimes were family times. Everything from parties to weddings to funerals even often include food. He ate a meal with His closest friends. All that tells us is that our glorified bodies will be able to ingest food, not that we will require it.
D
dranzal
Guest
Human nature is a rather simple thing. If Jesus was alive, the apostles would not have written otherwise. They certainly would not have written about His Ascension to heaven. If He was not crucified and resurrected, it would be foolish (indeed, deadly) to defend those claims to the death. It goes against human nature.
If He did not die, it is certain that the Jewish heirarchy would have ridiculed the new religion for being utter fools rather than attempting to violently oppose it. It is also certain that the Romans would have had something to say about the failed crucifixion. Human nature says that if the Jewish leaders would go to such lengths to kill him, they would not just throw up their hands in defeat if he lived through it. Everything points to His death. Period.
Paarsurrey, my brother is muslim. I admire you as I admire him for your level of faith. I pray that more Catholics would embrace their faith as you have yours. Have you ever given any thought to a hypothetical question such as What if those crazy Catholics are right? I’m only asking out of curiosity.
M
mercygate
Guest
If there is anyone here that I would wish not to offend, it is you. the remark at the end of my post that offended you was this: If Jesus did not die on the cross but lied about it, then he is a deceiver and no true prophet.
If Jesus went to India and lived out the rest of his life there, we would still be stuck with the problem that he would have been a deceiver and no true prophet. I do not say that to offend or to challenge. That is the only conclusion that could be drawn from the contention that Jesus did not die on the cross.
Perhaps I have made a mistake in entering this thread, because the premise that Jesus went to India is so extreme that I am unwilling at this point even to explore the idea. Christians, as you know, find it difficult to accept as “the pristine Word of God” a claim of such tremendous importance that arises in the late 19th Century, without a shred of continuity, from outside the continuous, unbroken Apostolic teaching of the Church that Christ promised to protect until he comes again. Similar claims in the second, third and fourth centuries were competently addressed by rightful authority at that time.
- Status