In a startling book titled "What if...: the editor Robert Cowley invited several well respected historians and authors to posit what he called counterfactual arguments against what we all now accept as historical verities. The chairman of the department of religious studies at Yale University, Carlos M.N. Eire, tackled the topic of, What if Jesus was not crucified, and he died of old age. Take away the crucifixion, which is the central tenet of Christianity, and what do you have? He argues that Christianity would be a form of Judaism that persecuted those that did not share its belief that Jesus was a prophet, or conversely, those who believed that Jesus was the messiah.
The Historical Facts say he was crucified, and resurrected from the dead,Proven by the Holy Bible, a History Text studied for thousands of years. Do you wish to dispute History, or God?
Yes in history he was crucified we cannot dispute that fact. Scientist know it.
Quote from some secular renonwed historian of the time of Jesus or quote from some scientific study, please.
I'm sorry, I don't know. but my bf is an atheist /agnostic and he admits Christ was--he saw it in a documentary on tv...........................
On TV? Well shoot, if it was on TV it has to be true! Case closed!
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the crucifixion is an indisputable fact that scientists know and will present irrefutable evidence to that fact because your boyfriend told you he saw it on TV?
Romans kept really good records, and whereas the name of the offenders have been lost. the Roman Governor of Judea in Palestine, was, indeed one Pontius Pilate, further, Herod was the Roman installed King of said Judea, and , being that crucifixion was a common punishment doled out to rabble rousers and common criminals, it is logical to assume, lacking other evidence, that it is not out of the realm of possibility that one Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. The defense rests.
You are quite right that the Romans kept good records. They also had different punishments for different offences. Nobility were kiled by a sword, Disobedient soldiers were bludgeoned, thieves and other miscreants were either butchered or enslaved. Crucifixion was the punishment for insurrectionists. After the Spartacus rebellion the Apian Way was lined with the crucified bodies of the rebel prisoners. The one part of the story that rings true is the sign above his head. That would have been placed there as a declaration of his crime, namely declaring himself king without Roman consent. The parts that do not ring true is that he was crucified with thieves and executed on passover eve.
Sorry, but the Bible is not proven to be historically accurate concerning the life of the person many know as Jesus Christ. There was no census in the year JC was born and even if there were, Joseph would not have been required to return to Bethlehem as it says in the bible.
There is no record of his existence other than the New Testament which is suspect, at best. Most of it was written decades or even centuries after his supposed existence. In other words, it is not a history book although some characters were real.
Just as General Sherman was real in "Gone With The Wind" it doesn't mean Scarlett was.
"Do you wish to disprove/dispute history or God?"
I and Mr. Eire neither have the intention nor the predisposition to dispute the historical significance of Jesus Christ as written in the Bible. What the author was asked to do by his editor was to posit a reasonable/plausible scenario of what history would have been if Jesus was not crucified. For example Mr. Eire suggested that if Jesus was not crucified, the Roman Empire would have lasted a lot longer, forever changing the history and topography of Europe, in the middle ages and beyond, towards the Rennaissance era and maybe even the modern world.
To answer this point; I do not believe there would be any significant difference to world history. My reasons for this;
The destruction of Jerusalem and the forced jewish diaspora had nothing to do with Christianity. At that time Judaism was a very broad church with many sects. The Christians were simply Jews who believed the Messiah had come. The only sect to emerge from the diaspora relatively intact were the Pharisees, the Hassidim of today. It seems reasonable to suppose the christian sect would have perished along with the rest.
At the time of Constantine the other predominant faith was the cult of Apollo. Without christianity Apollo would have been the Roman God and we would be worshipping the sun today. Roman history would have gone on just the same, there is no evidence that the fall of Rome had anything to do with Christianity per se.
It was the Jewish diaspora that affected world history. The protestant work ethic that gave us the industrial revolution was really a Jewish work ethos. The Jewish notion that man is here to have dominion over nature was fostered by Christianity and has led to our desire to control our environment rather than live in harmony with it. It may well be then that many of the ills of today would not be so apparent if Christianity had died the death of other Jewish sects.
I dunno if Judaism would "persecute" anyone, but I do know that if Jesus hadn't been crucified and risen, the world would be hopelessly lost, doomed in our sins or else doomed to strive for righteousness by trying to adhere to Commandments and rituals we aren't entirely capable of adhering to.
Ahhh...Brenda...what is this "we" business? You got a mouse in your pocket?
"We" is everyone. I don't understand your difficulty in understanding this.
We would all be lost if it weren't for Christ's sacrifice.
That would be superstitious, mythical and irrational.
As has been discussed in numerous other threads
THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE BIBLE STORIES
IF IT IS THE WORD OF A GOD THEN HE HAD A BAD MEMORY OR WAS LYING TO YOU
Ah - that feels better
Never say never China!
There is consensus of evidence among scholars on the subject, in fact, that the resurrection can be proven, from the accounts given to Luke and Matthew from eyewitnesses of the body disappearing.
However the death has still not been proven. The Romans did not record the death, nor did the Pharisees of the time. There is a Greek translation on the account of the trial, but supposedly it is suspect by modern scholars.
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
However, by the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. We already know that Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said:
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
He also wrote; Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts now have came to light. (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). He concluded after a very long lifetime study that the historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection.
Sir William Ramsay, who also spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
I think eventually evidence of a death will surface also, who's will have to be proven. But the opportunities for digs are opening up and many are potentially opening avenues to find that evidence of his death. Satellite technology, chemical laser probes etc... lots of good stuff.
I honestly think it will happen, we just have not dug deep enough- yet
The number of novels printed have no bearing on the validity of the contents. There may be a consensus between some scholars concerning the Crucifixion and/or Resurrection evidence, but as far as actual proof, there is none.
Remember how the dead walked the streets and the sky was dark for hours according to the bible? What did the scholars have to say about these things? No other biblical or scientific historian noted these events.
The Gospel of Luke is, Matthew is, and the information above does not come from "Novels" it was taken from direct quotes from Interviews with those scholars. Novels are just that and nothing more. I am speaking of the findings of real life researchers who have spent proven quality time in that research.
The ridiculous statements you speak of are already dis-proven.
You are correct though in pointing them out, because just as the New Testament can not escape the Old Testament, and facts exist to show there is contrary evidence of earth "ever" standing still-(to me those seem very ridiculous statements also). There are may holes in the whole book, I agree, but....
not all of it however. I do believe from study that some parts are very true. And Others are Filler or mis-interpretation, and possibly deliberate mis-representations. But again, not all of it
I was writing more to the specifics of Luke and his accuracy, which it appears from a lot of research compleated, that He was accurate.
I still would not say never, it is possible.
But other scholars have pointed out discrepancies in certain dates as well as other implausible occurrences in Luke's work. Or whoever actually wrote the gospel attributed to him! Unless, of course, someone has a writing sample from him! LOL!
pl search your PIN number through spritual Books[Not only in Bible] for to get wealth of GOD.Most of us having card with out PIN number and dont know how to operate ourself.
Ah - my duty
Many of the statements made by Dutchman1951 do not bare close scrutiny. A careful reading of mark shows that he was not aware of the destruction of Solomon's temple which would suggest it was written prior to 70AD. Luke is generally believed to have been written by Johannes Lucius the companion of Peter and so would be taken from Peter's recollections. The historical contradictions are numerous however, particularly those concerning the origin of Jesus. The birth at Bethlehem is obviously a construct to satisfy the prophecy of the messiah coming from the city of David. Archeological evidence shows there was no settlement at Nazareth until 200AD. there is much more but the origin of Jesus is cloudy to say the least.
The book of Acts and various epistles show a struggle for supremacy between the Galileans and later converts. This, along with the nature of the death of the founder would suggest that it was not a religion in it's founding, but an insurrection designed to end Roman occupation and establish a Jewish theocratic state. The "Kingdom of God on Earth"
If you choose do accept Jesus as a person, why would you not accept the cross? it was common practice then.What is the suggestion here? Should he have been killed in another matter? Or are you asking how life would be different if he wasn't martyred at all?
Jesus was put on the Cross and nailed and tortured by he was saved a cursed death on Cross as Jesus prayed to the Creator-God Allah YHWH whom he used to say God-the-Father and save him and he was saved.
What if Jesus was not crucified?
All the Prophets and Messengers of the Creator-God Allah YHWH were tested and went through tribulations. Spiritually when the come out of the test successfully their status is increased. Jesus was rewarded suitably; he went to India and a lost many people accepted him.
Jesus was not crucified and went to India? Any proof, were you there 2000 years ago?
If the crucifixion was a lie, which is what you are really saying then it is all a lie. If it is a lie, then Muhammad is also a lie, because Jesus is called a prophet by Islam. A prophet is not a prophet if one thing passes his lips that is not true. Since his crucifixion was prophesied, if it is a lie, then so are the prophets. It is a house of cards.
Jesus was truly put on the cross; but he did not die a cursed death on cross which makes him a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy. The Creator- God Allah YHWH saved his life under very odd circumstances and he migrated to India.
Sometimes the truth is hidden but it shines like a daylight with just a little pondering.
You can google to any zombie and to say anything.
Thats not good enough.
What if Jesus was not crucified?
If Jesus does not die a cursed death on Cross; that cracks the backbone of Christianity who believe Jesus as god or son of god untruthfully.
paar I ask you this, Why do you HATE Christians and Jesus so much. ?Jesus was I belive as a Catholic crucified and did die on the cross.
You cannot give any HARD evidence to disprove this fact. Jesus NEVER prayed to Allah and Allah never SAVED Jesus, this is just another blatent attempt by you to prove Christians wrong, as usual it failed, get a LIFE paar go to your Allah, and his Quran which is pure 'hearsay'. Do not take my word for it 'gogle ' hearsay' your self.
May The Lord Jesus Christ fogive your uniformed attacks om Jesus Christ.
by AKA Winston6 years ago
Many claim that the gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus and the bible is the inerrant word of god - if that is so, then why do the gospels disagree when it comes to the day of the week and the time of day...
by I'M BANNED Y'ALL!!!!!!!!!!5 years ago
On the one hand, they were murderers so they should go to Hell, but on the other hand their actions were necessary in order for Christianity to come into existence so they should go to Heaven. If you are Christian...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Hi friendsMirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 has given many proofs from the Bible; that Jesus did not die on the Cross. One such proof is as follows:Let it be noted that though Christians believe that Jesus (peace be on him)...
by Rishad I Habib7 years ago
Hello hubbers,Welcome to the second edition. This time I like to present more solid information (excluding the previous 42 with Horus) which portrays the parallels between Christianity & Paganism. Looking forward...
by Captain Redbeard2 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by taliesin33397 years ago
Are there any similarities between Christianity and the older pagan faiths? If so, what are they and how were they incorperated into Christianity. Please explain and be somewhat detailed on whatever side of the argument...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.