What would have happened if Jesus hadn't been crucified?

[LuthAeron]

In my Sociology class, we are studying world religions. As a project, we were each assigned a religion to study and learn about. My assignment is the Roman Catholic sect of Christianity.
I am haveing to tell myself over and over that these are all stories like any other mythology, and can be taken as a distorted veiw of the past... but that has little or nothing to do with this topic except insofar as to shine a little light on my perspective of it.
It is established in the Bible that God made man with free will, and that He would let us use it. If Jesus hadn't wanted to die for his 'father', what would have happend to us, the unsaved? Would we live the same lives we do now and be denied entrance into heaven, or would we live in a more-than-it-already-is suffering world? Or is there another reaction? Would God simply have had another son to be martyred? If he refused also?
Please take this as seriously as you can, and don't do too much Christian bashing, it would defeat the purpose of my question.
Thanx!

(For sources: www.carm.net , and the RC Bible)

[tracer]

Originally posted by LuthAeron
If Jesus hadn't wanted to die for his 'father', what would have happend to us, the unsaved?
We'd all fry in Hell, just like Moses and King David and Elijah and all the other folks who died before Jesus was born.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Are you looking for a historical answer or a theological one?

My guess is that, from a historical perspective, Jesus' little sect would have simply died out after the Roman destruction of Israel. It was a a pretty obscure and insignificant group while Jesus was alive. Without the crucifixion as a defining event, there would have been no Pauline mission to the gentiles, no Roman conversion, no Christianity.

From a theological standpoint, we simply would have never developed the notion that we HAD to be saved. This is a Christian invention not a Jewish one.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by tracer
We'd all fry in Hell, just like Moses and King David and Elijah and all the other folks who died before Jesus was born. If you are asserting that Christian teaching is that all pre-Jesus souls went to hell, you are mistaken.

Regards,
Shodan

[TheLadyLion]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic From a theological standpoint, we simply would have never developed the notion that we HAD to be saved. This is a Christian invention not a Jewish one. Gee, Diogenes , from my understanding of the Hebrew/Jewish faith, they are still waiting for the Messiah, the Savior who will rescue them and bring peace to the chosen people. Perhaps the way Christians see the role of the Messiah differs from the way Jews see it. I would welcome any of our Jewish Dopers to enlighten us on this concept.

By the way, Diogenes , I love reading your posts. :)

[Tuckerfan]

Ever read/seen The Last Temptation of Christ?

Seriously, though, if Christ hadn't been crucified, then there probably wouldn't be a Christianity, for it was his sacrifice which became the central wheel upon which Christianity revolves. Not only because of the themes within Christianity (i.e. by His death we all redeemed), but because it made it more like the other religions which were around at the time. So, assuming that Christianity became a seperate religion and not merely a subsect of Judiasm, it probably wouldn't have gathered quite the following it has today, and would resemble Judiasm in its size and make up. (i.e. a minority religion made up of mostly tight knit members.) I suspect that Islam would be the currently existing religion to fill the vacuum since many (if not all) Muslims believe that Christ didn't die on the cross. (Of course, Islam may not have been able to grow without the "help" of Christianity.)

[TheLadyLion]

Originally posted by LuthAeron If Jesus hadn't wanted to die for his 'father', what would have happend to us, the unsaved? Would we live the same lives we do now and be denied entrance into heaven, or would we live in a more-than-it-already-is suffering world? Interesting questions, LuthAeron. If you check your Bible, Jesus didn't die for his Father.... according to the Gospels, he permitted himself to be put to death (1) to fulfill scripture (OT), and (2) for the forgiveness of our sins. The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that the souls of those who died before the death of Jesus were not permitted into heaven, but were not sent to hell, as Tracer stated. My understanding of the death of Christ was not for us to have an easier life here, just a much nicer welcome after we leave here.

And I agree with Diogenes, that Christianity would probably never have taken hold and grown, had Jesus not died. The defining of Christianity, IMHO, lies in not only his death but the spreading of the word about his resurrection. Even with all of this, most Jews were disappointed in Jesus, because he didn't save them in the way they thought he should have.... they appeared to be looking for a Savior from the Romans, and Jesus certainly didn't put an end to Roman occupation. Instead he got himself crucified. Most saw that as a weakness; those who continued to follow his teachings saw it as the supreme sacrifice. He was also unpopular with many because his ideas were radical for his time, his methods were far from acceptable to Jewish leaders and he preached a new way of handling things. Not a very good way to win friends and influence people in his day (or ours, if you look around). Because of all this, I find it absolutely amazing that Christianity took root in the first place, but I'm glad that it did.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by TheLadyLion

Gee, Diogenes , from my understanding of the Hebrew/Jewish faith, they are still waiting for the Messiah, the Savior who will rescue them and bring peace to the chosen people. Perhaps the way Christians see the role of the Messiah differs from the way Jews see it. I would welcome any of our Jewish Dopers to enlighten us on this concept.

The Jewish Messiah was originally expected to be a new King of Israel who would rescue the Jews from the Romans. Later the expectation was that he would restore Israel, build a third temple, and bring world peace.

Notice that these are all Earthly expectations, not otherworldly ones. Concepts like original sin, hell, and the "salvation" of the individual soul (as opposed to the Jewish people collectively) do not exist in Judaism.

By the way, Diogenes , I love reading your posts. :)

Aw shucks, yer makin' me blush. :o

[TheLadyLion]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The Jewish Messiah was originally expected to be a new King of Israel who would rescue the Jews from the Romans. Later the expectation was that he would restore Israel, build a third temple, and bring world peace.

Notice that these are all Earthly expectations, not otherworldly ones. Concepts like original sin, hell, and the "salvation" of the individual soul (as opposed to the Jewish people collectively) do not exist in Judaism. Very true and well-taken, Diogenes . And you can blush all you want to.

[Saen]

What would have happened if Jesus hadn't been crucified?

Well I can tell you what wouldn't have happened. I would have been spared a few switchins' cus I got my easter outfit dirty before church.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by TheLadyLion
And I agree with Diogenes, that Christianity would probably never have taken hold and grown, had Jesus not died. The defining of Christianity, IMHO, lies in not only his death but the spreading of the word about his resurrection.

(1 Cor 15:12-14 KJV) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? {13} But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: {14} And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

(1 Cor 15:17-19 NIV) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. {18} Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. {19} If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Paul said that if Christ is not risen, it's all for nothing. So if he never died, he can't have risen. So yes, if he hadn't been crucified, Christianity would not exist. I agree with Diogenes and TheLadyLion.

[martin_ibn_martin]

Hey

Salaam u alaikum

Tuckerfan is right, we don't believe that The Propet Yeshua was killed on the cross. What happened after is a matter for tradition and conjecture, with the tendancy to believe thet he was taken bodily up to Allah to await the Final Days.

So for us, the question is kinda moot:D

[SentientMeat]

I have heard it argued convincingly that Jesus did his very best to get crucified. If you let it be known that you are the son of God, orchestrate a spectacular entrance to Jerusalem having conned someone's ass off them (literally), walk into the holiest temple on the holiest day of the year and wreck the place, you are seriously risking your neck against Roman "justice". Those posters comparing Jesus to Che Guevara have something to them IMHO.

If he had somehow miraculously wriggled out of crucifiction, my guess is he would have come back next year and tried again.

[Mangetout]

Welcome to the boards, martin_ibn_martin
We don't have a huge number of Muslims here; I hope you enjoy your stay and I'm looking forward to reading your input on a number of topics.

[Liberal]

LuthAeron wrote:

Would we live the same lives we do now and be denied entrance into heaven, or would we live in a more-than-it-already-is suffering world?There would be no heaven, and God would be dead.

[RobertTB]

Well, wouldn't it be fair to assume that Jesus would have died at somepoint of old age? Then the other events could be set in motion...(Not as dramatic, I know, but hey...)

[Steve Wright]

My take on this, in my capacity as an unqualified armchair theologian; if Jesus had not died on the Cross, He would have found some other way to redeem us.

Maybe His fame as a moral teacher might have spread across the world. Maybe He would have travelled to Rome and personally converted the Emperor. Maybe He would have gone on to die in obscurity and old age, but nonentheless, at that moment, have taken all our sins upon Himself and redeemed us. (He was a mortal man, after all, He would have died of something.) We can't know how things might have turned out, but we can be sure of one thing: He loves us, He came among us to redeem us, and He wasn't about to go away and leave that job undone.

I think there was a debate a while back about whether or not the Crucifixion, since it led to the redemption of humanity, was an evil act. My take on this is that yes, it was - it was a free-willed act of judicial murder, for which the people responsible should rightly be condemned. (NB - the specific people responsible. Not their relatives, their compatriots, or remote descendents of their relatives and compatriots.) Redemption is necessary; the means by which it is achieved aren't necessarily important.

So, if Jesus had not been crucified, the history of Christianity, and the world, would be very different - but God is omnipotent, and He would find some way to offer us salvation.

[SentientMeat]

it was a free-willed act of judicial murder, for which the people responsible should rightly be condemned. (NB - the specific people

I do not believe that Jesus received a particularly harsh sentence given his actions and the level of civilisation at the time. You presumably consider all crucifictions committed by the Romans for public-order offences as "judicial murder"? And also executions in Greek, Minoan, Israelites civilisations etc?

[lynn73]

Well, my opinion is that since the express purpose of Jesus dying was for our sins, then if He hadn't done it there would be no opportunity for anyone to be saved ever because we would never be able to be good enough. His death was necessary, so without it there's no Savior, no Redeemer.

[Sebhal]

I was wondering, assuming no Christianity, what the state of the world's religions would be. I, too, thought that maybe Islam would fill the void, but didn't Islam arise from Christianity? That being the case, if Christianity was not as widespread, surely Mohammad may not have taken the path he did?

N.

PS.
Crucifiction! Absolutely inspired Sentient! Brilliant!

[SentientMeat]

No, just crap spelling. I wish ide ment it.

[Sebhal]

Crap spelling? No, it was just subconscious.

[Steve Wright]

Well, SentientMeat, I use the phrase "judicial murder" because - at least according to the Biblical account - it describes what happened; the mechanism of the law used unjustly (by the religious authorities of the time) to put a political/philosophical opponent to death. If we accept the Biblical account, Jesus was not, in fact, guilty of any crime for which he could legitimately be executed (and, in fact, Pilate pretty much says so). Of course, this begs the question of how far we can trust the Biblical account to be historically accurate, but I think that's a different topic for discussion.

Or, if you want me to condemn the death penalty, and state my absolute opposition to it, in any time or place, for any reason whatsoever, then I'm quite happy to do that. But that, too, seems to me to be a different topic.

His4Ever, if we accept that Jesus was born as a mortal man, then we have to accept that He would have died, as all mortal men do ... if you believe His death to be necessary for our salvation (which point has, I think, been debated), then does it matter how, specifically, that death comes about?

Nerrie, I suspect that whatever religious philosophies influenced the later Roman Empire would have had a significant effect on subsequent European history. IIRC, mystery cults like that of Mithras, and philosophical movements like Neoplatonism were influential at that time - it's interesting to speculate as to how they'd have developed in the absence of Christianity.

[SentientMeat]

Agreed, Steve . However, I still think he went looking for it (crucifixion I mean).



Crucifixion? Good. Up the stairs, line up on the left, one cross each...

[vanilla]

none of our sins would be forgiven.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
His4Ever, if we accept that Jesus was born as a mortal man, then we have to accept that He would have died, as all mortal men do ... if you believe His death to be necessary for our salvation (which point has, I think, been debated), then does it matter how, specifically, that death comes about?


I have to say that, before I read this, I thought if jesus hadn't been cruxified, there would be no saving, no christianity, etc.. However, now I'm not to sure.:confused:

Did Jesus have to die the way he did, in order for their to be salvation?

[vanilla]

I would wager so, since it was predicted many years before it happened.
The prophets were not wrong.

[Mangetout]

A lot of Christians view the manner of Christ's death as fulfilling lots of Old Testament prophecies (notably Isaiah 53), whether a natural death would have fulfilled others or disqualified him as the Messiah (in the sense of the Christian view, which has arisen after the event and I know Judaism sees things rather differently) is arguable.

[lynn73]

[i]Originally posted by Steve Wright [/i

His4Ever, if we accept that Jesus was born as a mortal man, then we have to accept that He would have died, as all mortal men do ... if you believe His death to be necessary for our salvation (which point has, I think, been debated), then does it matter how, specifically, that death comes about?

[ [/B]

Hmm, that's an interesting question. I'd probably have to say that a natural old age death isn't what the Father had in mind to purchase our redemption. There'd be no suffering or punishment for our sins if He'd just lived out a normal life. All of our sins were put upon Him which, for that moment in time, divided Him from the Father, which was suffering in itself, not to mention the physical suffering. It was the express purpose for which He came so I don't know that a normal life span and death would have accomplished that.

Any other thoughts on that idea?

[vanilla]

IMHO, it was the fact that He was put to death under the law, even though he was innocent, that was meant to symbolize the fact that He was taking the rap for us, so to speak.

[SentientMeat]

His tantrum in the Temple, a conspicuous public-order breach including criminal damage, might not have warranted a death penalty - a public flogging might have been normal under Roman rule.

Further allowing rumours to spread that you are "King of the Jews" will obviously mark you out to the Romans as a potential revolutionary leader, and winding up the Pharisees with blasphemous language is certainly not the way out of trouble.

As Steve points out, he probably was not "put to death under the law". However, he was certainly not "innocent" in a criminal or political sense.

[Steve Wright]

Well, aren't we all born innocent, and put to death under the law? That is, the natural law, which tells us all mortal things have to die.

And, if you accept that the prophets are inspired by God, then you would expect them to predict the manner of His death, however it occurred. (Or, if Jesus had been run down by an ox cart, that's what you'd see predicted in Isaiah. Not that I place too much stock in prophecies ... human beings have shown far too much flexibility in interpreting them.)

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
Well, aren't we all born innocent, and put to death under the law? That is, the natural law, which tells us all mortal things have to die.

And, if you accept that the prophets are inspired by God, then you would expect them to predict the manner of His death, however it occurred. (Or, if Jesus had been run down by an ox cart, that's what you'd see predicted in Isaiah. Not that I place too much stock in prophecies ... human beings have shown far too much flexibility in interpreting them.)

I agree with what you have to say about prophecies.


Also His4Ever, vanilla, (or anyone who knows), is their any backing in the bible to Jesus's death by something other than old age?

[vanilla]

I do not have my Bible on me, but by the time I get back online tomorow, someone else will have come up with the relevant verses.

[MEBuckner]

Huh. Now I have this picture of Christians throughout the world making the Sign of Heart Failure: during solemn ceremonies, they clutch their chests and say "My left arm's gone numb!" And wearing little symbolic representations of clogged arteries around their necks.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Steve wright

I think there was a debate a while back about whether or not the Crucifixion, since it led to the redemption of humanity, was an evil act. My take on this is that yes, it was - it was a free-willed act of judicial murder, for which the people responsible should rightly be condemned.

Well don't forget, Jesus himself forgave them:

Luke 23:34

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."


Well, SentientMeat, I use the phrase "judicial murder" because - at least according to the Biblical account - it describes what happened; the mechanism of the law used unjustly (by the religious authorities of the time) to put a political/philosophical opponent to death.

Jesus was executed by the Romans as a public nuisance, not by "religious authorities" out to get an "opponent."

Crucifixion was an exclusively Roman method of execution. The Romans didn't care about internecine religious squabbling between Jews, they just wanted everybody to obey the Pax Romana and to pay their taxes.

Furthermore, Jewish religious authorities did not require permission from the Romans to execute somebody for religious reasons (remember the attempted stoning of the adulterous woman?). If the Sanhedrin had really wanted to kill Jesus, they could have simply taken him outside and stoned him at any time.

One final point: Jesus wasn't teaching anything which was really that radical or even particularly original. The "golden Rule" for instance had already been stated by Rabbi Hillel long before Jesus. The teaching of the Pharisees was not dramatically different from that of Jesus. Religious argument and debate was, and is, an essential part of Jewish worship. It would be a fundamentally unjewish act to murder a Rabbi for debating the Torah.


Originally posted by vanilla

I would wager so, since it was predicted many years before it happened.
The prophets were not wrong.

There are no prophesies of the crucifixion in the Hebrew Bible.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
One final point: Jesus wasn't teaching anything which was really that radical or even particularly original. The "golden Rule" for instance had already been stated by Rabbi Hillel long before Jesus. The teaching of the Pharisees was not dramatically different from that of Jesus. Religious argument and debate was, and is, an essential part of Jewish worship. It would be a fundamentally unjewish act to murder a Rabbi for debating the Torah.


Ah, I can always count on Diogenes to come through with pertinant information!:)

{hijack}
Then what was radical about Jesus? Why was he picked to be followed?

*I'm looking for a short version, I'm fully aware that this could become a debate in and of itself, but that's not my intent.

[Steve Wright]

The fact that Jesus forgave them doesn't mean it wasn't a wrong thing for them to do. (Can you forgive someone for doing the right thing?)

And, if Jesus was a threat to public order in Judaea, it was only as a result of his conflict with the Jewish religious authorities - which did go a little bit further than simply debating the Torah. So, if the scribes and the Pharisees hadn't been opposed to him, there would have been no legal pretext for His execution.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by meatros

Also His4Ever, vanilla, (or anyone who knows), is their any backing in the bible to Jesus's death by something other than old age?

The fact is, that there are simply no OT predictions whatsoever about Jesus. Most verses or passages which Christians purport to be prophesies of Jesus have been yanked out of a very specific historical and literary context and twisted to fit a Christian one.

A few other prophesies were "fulfilled" retroactively when gospel writers inserted elements designed to fit OT expectations (birth in Bethlehem, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey).

The authors of the gospels were not being deliberately dishonest, they simply did not know very much about Jesus. They were writing long after the crucifixion, and none of them had ever met or known Jesus (or, indeed, probably even been born at the time of Jesus' ministry). Information was hard to come by. All they had were basically some sayings and parables passed down orally, and possibly a handful of pericopal anecdotes. In order to find more information, they read the Hebrew Bible. Since the Messiah was expected be in the line of David, that's what was written, not as an attempt to mislead, but from a belief that it MUST be true.

The gospels were not intended to be accurate biographies (there are plenty of contradictions between the gospels as to chronologies, geneologies, and characterizations of events) but to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, or God, or whatever a particular author's religious agenda was. Using "prophesies" was a useful method to accomplish this, however tenuous, specious or contrived those prophesies may turn out to be on close inspection.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic

One final point: Jesus wasn't teaching anything which was really that radical or even particularly original. The "golden Rule" for instance had already been stated by Rabbi Hillel long before Jesus.


Yes and no. True, Hillel taught the "Golden Rule" before Jesus (but hey, "Love your neighbor as yourself" goes all the way back to Leviticus, so it didn't originate with Hillel either...). However, Jesus had radical ideas about other subjects, the Sabbath (note that he violated the Sabbath even when life was not at stake), being one, that were not supported by the vast majority of sages in his day.

[quote]
The teaching of the Pharisees was not dramatically different from that of Jesus. Religious argument and debate was, and is, an essential part of Jewish worship. It would be a fundamentally unjewish act to murder a Rabbi for debating the Torah.
[/qutoe]

Well, yes and no. True, debate on matters of Jewish law was alive and well then (as it is today) and was encouraged.

However, there is, however, an case where a sage can be executed for teaching radical interpretations. In short, once the Sanhedrin (which was the Supreme Court) decided a matter of Jewish law, it became forbidden for one to teach in the manner rejected by the Sanhedrin. After proper warning, a rebellious sage who continued to teach otherwise could be exectued. However, there is no indication that this is what happened with Jesus (for starters, he would not have been crucified).

Zev Steinhardt

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Meatros

Then what was radical about Jesus? Why was he picked to be followed?

Probably the most radical and attractive aspects of his ministry were his rejections of cold legalisms and ritual purity in favor of a more compassionate and inclusive philosophy. Who a rabbi, associated with, ate with, or even touched had the potential to render him "unclean" by his contemorary standards.

Jesus said to hell with it, and waded right into the thick of the most desperate and "unclean" people. This wasn't just a "nice" thing to do in Jesus' culture, it was actually seen as unclean and immoral. Dining with prostitutes and tax collectors was an unspeakably shocking thing for a rabbi to do.

"Healing" was also highly ritualized. It was believed that afflicted people were being punished by God for something, and were therefore marginalized and isolated as being morally unfit to associate with. "Healing" represented a spiritual exercise rather than a physical one. It did not mean to cure the physical affliction, (there is a different word for cure) but to heal the soul, to accept someone as a "clean" person. This process was to be done only by priests (for a fee of course) and poor people basically had no chance.

Jesus just went out willy-nilly "healing" anyone who asked, which undermined priestly authority and also made Jesus himself unclean.

This, IMO, is the true mark of Jesus' appeal and his heroism. He put his own reputation and status on the line. he forced people either to accept the "unclean" people that Jesus ministered to, or to reject Jesus himself. Whenever Jesus had a choice between law and compassion, he always chose compassion.

This obviously would have won him tremendous devotion and loyalty from the outcasts and the poor. In addition, he doubtlessly had a remarkable personal charisma and a profound and memorable oratorical style.


Originally posted by Steve wright

And, if Jesus was a threat to public order in Judaea, it was only as a result of his conflict with the Jewish religious authorities - which did go a little bit further than simply debating the Torah. So, if the scribes and the Pharisees hadn't been opposed to him, there would have been no legal pretext for His execution.

He was executed for causing a disturbance at the temple during Passover. The Romans were exceptionally nervous during Passover because Jerusalem was packed with thousands of extra people at that time. The Romans were greatly outnumbered and they did not want even a hint of civil unrest. Anybody causing a stir such as Jesus did was quickly and routinely taken away and crucified as a warning and a deterrent. There was nothing unusual about doing it to Jesus. Casual executions were part of the Pax Romana.

The gospels' attempts to infer a Jewish led impetus for the execution of Jesus was born of an attempt to minimize Roman culpability. They were, after all, trying to convert ROMANS.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Probably the most radical and attractive aspects of his ministry were his rejections of cold legalisms and ritual purity in favor of a more compassionate and inclusive philosophy. Who a rabbi, associated with, ate with, or even touched had the potential to render him "unclean" by his contemorary standards.


This, however, is really not a big deal. A person who was tamei ("unclean" for lack of a better English translation) could not go to the Temple grounds, nor eat from sacrificial or consecrated foods. Otherwise, however, being tamei had no effect on a person's life.

Zev Steinhardt

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Zev Steinhardt

This, however, is really not a big deal. A person who was tamei ("unclean" for lack of a better English translation) could not go to the Temple grounds, nor eat from sacrificial or consecrated foods. Otherwise, however, being tamei had no effect on a person's life.

Which supports my assertion that he was not doing or teaching anything radical enough to warrant a death sentence from the Sanhedrin.

[martin_ibn_martin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nerrie
[B]I was wondering, assuming no Christianity, what the state of the world's religions would be. I, too, thought that maybe Islam would fill the void, but didn't Islam arise from Christianity? That being the case, if Christianity was not as widespread, surely Mohammad may not have taken the path he did?

N.

Harry Turtledove, one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors has examined sort of the opposite question. Whst would have happened the the Byzantine Empire without the rise of Islam?

In "Agent of Byzantium", "Mahmood" is one of the most beloved Saints and liturgists of the Church. His best known statement is "There is no God but God, and Jesus is His Son". Saint Mahmood finished his days in a monastary in Spain.

I highly reccomend nearly of Turtledove's Alternate fiction.

Martin

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Which supports my assertion that he was not doing or teaching anything radical enough to warrant a death sentence from the Sanhedrin.

Not necessarily ture.

Even if being tamei had little effect on a person in his daily life, it is still a halachic ruling that, if ruled upon by the Sanhedrin could cause a death sentence to a sage who ruled otherwise.

In Jesus' case, there's no evidence that the matter went that far (as to have a formal Sanhedrin ruling on the matter) and that Jesus was warned to stop teaching as such ( a necessary pre-condicdtion for a death penalty).

Zev Steinhardt

[Polycarp]

In Jesus' case, there's no evidence that the matter went that far (as to have a formal Sanhedrin ruling on the matter) and that Jesus was warned to stop teaching as such ( a necessary pre-condicdtion for a death penalty).

Well, Zev, I don't know as "there's no evidence" -- though I certainly don't expect you to hold this as, uh, "Gospel" :

When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." 3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, "Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people." (Matthew 26:1-5)

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest; and going inside, he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This fellow said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.' " 62 The high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?" 63 But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, "I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your verdict?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spat in his face and struck him; and some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?" (Matthew 26:57-68)

13 First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. ... 19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said." 22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23 Jesus answered, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:13, 19-24, with material about Peter's denial and an earlier inadvertent prophecy by Caiaphas omitted.)





One of the points made in regard to the whole story of Jesus's arrest and trial is that all four Gospels agree in having him go to the Garden of Gethsemane, across the Kidron Valley from the city of Jerusalem at the time, to pray. It was there that he said to God the Father, "If it be possible, Lord, let this cup be taken from me. Nevertheless, not my will but yours be done."

The key point here, as noted by a friend to me years ago, is that in Jesus's day and to a large extent still today, the land beyond the rise on which Gethsemane sits is wilderness. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Jesus to have bugged out over the hill and out into the wilderness, rather than going to his arrest and what he was at least fairly sure at this point was going to be his death.

He chose to stay.

[LuthAeron]

What if he hadn't, I beleive the question was originally... though I might have lost it a while ago amidst the wonderful responces... what would have happened if Jesus hadn't chosen to stay?:confused:

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The fact is, that there are simply no OT predictions whatsoever about Jesus. Most verses or passages which Christians purport to be prophesies of Jesus have been yanked out of a very specific historical and literary context and twisted to fit a Christian one.

A

What about Psalm 22? "They pierced my hands and my feet". This sounds like crucifiction to me. David wasn't crucified as far as know.

Also Isaiah 53. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteen him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him: and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."verses 4-6

This sounds pretty much like Jesus dying for our sins to me. It matters not that it's listed as past tense. It's a done deal from eternity past as far as the Father is concerned. No one else was ever wounded for our transgressions. No one else had all our iniquity laid on him. Only Jesus.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by martin_ibn_martin
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nerrie
[B]I was wondering, assuming no Christianity, what the state of the world's religions would be. I, too, thought that maybe Islam would fill the void, but didn't Islam arise from Christianity? That being the case, if Christianity was not as widespread, surely Mohammad may not have taken the path he did?

N.

Harry Turtledove, one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors has examined sort of the opposite question. Whst would have happened the the Byzantine Empire without the rise of Islam?

In "Agent of Byzantium", "Mahmood" is one of the most beloved Saints and liturgists of the Church. His best known statement is "There is no God but God, and Jesus is His Son". Saint Mahmood finished his days in a monastary in Spain.

I highly reccomend nearly of Turtledove's Alternate fiction.

Martin

I've read a different Turtledove book (guns of the south) and I have to say that I recommend his alternate fiction as well.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by His4ever
What about Psalm 22? "They pierced my hands and my feet". This sounds like crucifiction to me. David wasn't crucified as far as know.

Also Isaiah 53. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteen him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him: and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."verses 4-6

This sounds pretty much like Jesus dying for our sins to me. It matters not that it's listed as past tense. It's a done deal from eternity past as far as the Father is concerned. No one else was ever wounded for our transgressions. No one else had all our iniquity laid on him. Only Jesus.

I think what Dio is aiming for is a specific prophecy. The first passage you suggested (Psalm 22) sounds pretty on the money in that regard. But I have to ask, what's the whole passage? Is this taken out of context?

The second passage (Isaiah 53) could apply to anyone who would be a savior, also it looks pretty interpretable to me. You are looking at the passage from a very Christian standpoint (nothing wrong with that), but if you take a step back, you might realize it's a little vague.

[El Zagna]

Originally posted by LuthAeron
It is established in the Bible that God made man with free will, and that He would let us use it. Actually I don't think this is true at all. My understanding is that free will is never discussed or even alluded to in the Bible, but rather was a notion conceived much later to explain away some of the inconsistencies in the Bible.

[Steve Wright]

I wouldn't expect Christ's moral teaching to be wholly original and revolutionary. The moral laws of the universe are set up by God, just like the physical laws, and, like the physical laws, can be worked out by the exercise of human intelligence. Lots of non-Christian people have worked out those laws and led perfectly moral lives, without input from Christianity.

For me, what distinguishes Christ's teaching is the emphasis on the personal relationship with God. Christ is God with a human face; not a remote Creator whose face can't be shown, but an ordinary human being that you can talk to every day. It's that reconciliation of the mundane with the ineffably divine that speaks to me in my soul; God wants us to come to him, but is willing to meet us halfway; not as Creator, Judge and Father, but as a friend.

That, and the recognition, at the very heart of Christianity, that love is all that matters. There is no need for rules, no need for organized priesthood; all we need to do, as Christians, is love God, realize that He loves us, and love each other. Everything else proceeds from that: "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

[El Zagna]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
all we need to do, as Christians, is love God, realize that He loves us, and love each other. Everything else proceeds from that: "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [segue to Monte Python] Oh, wait! That's three commandments! Very well. We have three commandments. They are: love God, realize that He loves us, and love each other but not in the physical sense. Augh!. That's four!... We have four commandments.... no ...Of the four commandments...um...Among our arsenal of commandments are the following...

[Steve Wright]

Calm down, bnorton. The "realize He loves us" bit is my own, unauthorized, interpolation. The "two commandments" bit comes from here (Matthew 22. 35-40):
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
... which gets quoted so often in these debates that I kind of assume people will be familiar with it.

[Polycarp]

His, it's been noted by Biblical scholars since the second century (if not earlier -- see the Epistle to the Hebrews) that there are a lot of passages in the Old Testament that certainly look to a Christian like they prophesy who Jesus was and what He did and suffered through. However, many of these speak of God (who in the Jewish view did not become incarnate as the stepson of a carpenter) or of the Jewish people, or have other points to make. In this last category is the famous Emmanuel prophecy from Isaiah:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:10-16, NRSV)

In short, King Ahaz of Judah is being threatened by the Kings of Syria and Israel, and to hearten him, God, speaking through Isaiah, points out a young woman of the court, says that she's pregnant, and will have a son whom she will name Emmanuel (which means "God with us"), and that by the time that baby boy is old enough to know good from bad, the two kings of whom Ahaz is afraid will be pushing up daisies in their graves. And this in fact happened. But, interestingly, the word Isaiah used for "young woman" is [i]almah, which in later years took on the connotation "virgin" or "(unmarried) maiden." And we believ that the son whom a Virgin bore several hundred years later became God With Us in a very special way.

Anyway, this sort of secondary meaning invested in scripture is called "typology" and it is hotly disputed in Bible-scholarly circles to what extent typology is valid.

From the perspective of the Jews, the only prophecies that literally predict the Messiah were not fulfilled in Jesus -- they are the sorts of ones that led them to expect a person who would lead them militarily and establish a kingdom of righteousness, not a person who would teach righteousness and compassion and then humbly go to the Cross.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by His4ever
What about Psalm 22? "They pierced my hands and my feet". This sounds like crucifiction to me. David wasn't crucified as far as know.

Also Isaiah 53. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteen him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him: and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."verses 4-6

This sounds pretty much like Jesus dying for our sins to me. It matters not that it's listed as past tense. It's a done deal from eternity past as far as the Father is concerned. No one else was ever wounded for our transgressions. No one else had all our iniquity laid on him. Only Jesus.

Meatros and polycarp have addressed some of this already, but let me respond to your specific quotations.

The 22nd Psalm is the lament of a person (not David) suffering from physical illness. At that time, illness was considered to be sign of God's displeasure. The Psalmist describes his condition and the harrassment and mocking he receives on account of it. The "piercing" of hands and feet is part of the abuse such people used to recieve. This line was seized on by later Christian writers because it seemed like it might refer to Jesus. In context of the entire Psalm this is completely unsupportable.

The passages from Isaiah, are a description of a "servant of the lord" which is a metaphor for Israel itself. The suffering is about the suffering of the Jewish people. The "we" is the rest of the world describing their treatment of the Jews. Here is a more accurate translation of your passage from the Hebrew:

Isaiah 53;4-6
(4) But in truth, it was our ills that he bore and our pains that he
carried - but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by G-d, and
afflicted!
(5) He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through
our iniquity; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit and through his wounds, we were healed. (6) We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and the Almighty inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.

The narrator is saying that the Jews were punished for the benefit of others and not for anything that they, themselves had done.

Here (http://messiahpage.com/htmldocs/isaiah53.html) is a link which presents a more detailed commentary on the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. (which is also where I got the translation)

[x-ray vision]

What about the scenario that Jesus might not have died on the cross anyway because maybe he never lived? There's no real evidence that a man named Jesus ever walked the Earth. If he really did all those miracles wouldn't historians of the day had written about him?

[Meatros]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
What about the scenario that Jesus might not have died on the cross anyway because maybe he never lived? There's no real evidence that a man named Jesus ever walked the Earth. If he really did all those miracles wouldn't historians of the day had written about him?

I don't know if I'd go that far. There is some evidence that he was around during that time period, where or not it constitutes "real" evidence I suppose is subjective. If I remember correctly, I believe that Jesus had his name in a few Roman books or some such thing.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Meatros
I don't know if I'd go that far. There is some evidence that he was around during that time period, where or not it constitutes "real" evidence I suppose is subjective. If I remember correctly, I believe that Jesus had his name in a few Roman books or some such thing. The Master Knows All. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html)

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
The Master Knows All. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html)


Ah, yes, he most certainly does. For reference, this is what I was talking about:

"The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.""

Now, I don't know if this constitutes "real evidence", but for my money, it's good enough.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

The gospels themselves are pretty good evidence of his existance as several of them were written independantly (see Cecils column on "Who wrote bible?".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think it's fairly well established that he at least EXISTED...it's everything else that's up for debate.

[El Zagna]

Steve Wright - I was just making a reference to an old Monte Python routine about the Spanish Inquisition. If you're unfamiliar with the sketch, there's no way to explain it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[SentientMeat]

Getting back to the OP, then if it was possible for Jesus to say "blow this" and live quietly ever after whittling Nazarene handicraft, then the logical conclusion is that God played dice with the salvation of humanity and won, luckily for us. Had Jesus chosen otherwise, then for God to then simply roll again until one of his “sons” died in some sufficiently impressive manner implies a fundamental randomness which even God is subject to.

Again, I do not wish to appear to indulge in "Christian bashing" but the simpler explanation is that Jesus read the Scriptures and tried to engineer a dramatic enough story, based loosely on their prophecies, to ensure he started a new religion.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by SentientMeat
Getting back to the OP, then if it was possible for Jesus to say "blow this" and live quietly ever after whittling Nazarene handicraft, then the logical conclusion is that God played dice with the salvation of humanity and won, luckily for us. Had Jesus chosen otherwise, then for God to then simply roll again until one of his “sons” died in some sufficiently impressive manner implies a fundamental randomness which even God is subject to.

Again, I do not wish to appear to indulge in "Christian bashing" but the simpler explanation is that Jesus read the Scriptures and tried to engineer a dramatic enough story, based loosely on their prophecies, to ensure he started a new religion.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to assume that God wasn't directly involved with Jesus; which I don't believe, but it's a perfectly legitimate belief. In any event, if you take the Christian explanation into consideration then, remember Einstein, God didn't role dice, he knew Jesus would follow his word.
Why would God be subject to randomness? It's perfectly possible that he is, but the way I read your post, it seems as though God can not help it-am I reading it right?

[SentientMeat]

"If he knew Jesus would follow his word", then Jesus effectively had no choice. God knowing which way Jesus would jump is equivalent to stating that God orchestrated a situation such that the being he created would react the way he (God) wanted.

Surely any possibility that Jesus could in some way "refuse" to be the Messiah leaves God looking on nervously, like the gambler watching the roulette wheel? Of course, this is the age old "free will" debate.

And yes, I am putting forward the "atheist" explanation for the beginnings of Christianity, but only as one option amongst several. However, it does necessarily clash with orthodoxy to merely suggest that Jesus exercised some deliberate intent to get himself crucified, according to God's wishes.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by SentientMeat
"If he knew Jesus would follow his word", then Jesus effectively had no choice. God knowing which way Jesus would jump is equivalent to stating that God orchestrated a situation such that the being he created would react the way he (God) wanted.

Surely any possibility that Jesus could in some way "refuse" to be the Messiah leaves God looking on nervously, like the gambler watching the roulette wheel? Of course, this is the age old "free will" debate.

And yes, I am putting forward the "atheist" explanation for the beginnings of Christianity, but only as one option amongst several. However, it does necessarily clash with orthodoxy to merely suggest that Jesus exercised some deliberate intent to get himself crucified, according to God's wishes.


I would also say that it is possible (from a Christian standpoint) that Jesus was God.

From an Atheist standpoint, I don't think it matters whether or not God spoke to him-from an Atheist standpoint He didn't.

[SentientMeat]

However, it does necessarily clash with orthodoxy to merely suggest that Jesus exercised some deliberate intent...

There should be a not after "does" - sorry.

I would also say that it is possible (from a Christian standpoint) that Jesus was God.

Of course, I believe this is possible too. But the OP asks about other possible deaths of Jesus resulting from his own free will, which simply becomes God's will if the two are indivisible and identical - the question then merely becomes "What if God hadn't sent Jesus ever ?".

I realise that the atheist scenario is somewhat irrelevant to the OP, but I think it's worth pointing out that it appears the simplest solution to this old problem, purely in an Occam's razor kind of way.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by SentientMeat
There should be a not after "does" - sorry.



Of course, I believe this is possible too. But the OP asks about other possible deaths of Jesus resulting from his own free will, which simply becomes God's will if the two are indivisible and identical - the question then merely becomes "What if God hadn't sent Jesus ever ?".

I realise that the atheist scenario is somewhat irrelevant to the OP, but I think it's worth pointing out that it appears the simplest solution to this old problem, purely in an Occam's razor kind of way.


I think I read the OP from a far different standpoint; as coming from a non-Christian standpoint, what if Jesus didn't die, would their still be Christians (if he didn't die from cruxifiction-if he was still around today, I think everyone would believe).

The way I read the OP, you could substitute a variety of different faiths; What if Moses hadn't lead the isrealites out of Egypt? Would their be a jewish faith? Basically, what if the Faith founder hadn't done their "biggest" miracle? Would their still be ____ religion?
That's how I read the question and after re-reading the OP, I've realized that I'm a little of course as to where I'm coming from...So my posts maybe a slight hijack....:smack:

[elfkin477]

I get the impression that despite his loyal followers, Jesus was not a terribly popular man. More than a few saw him as a threat. Had he not died on the cross, and perhaps instead was given a less harsh punishment for his crimes against the Romans, I think he would have been murdered soon after by someone irate about his actions. In effect he would still have been a religious-political martyr, so it's likely that Christianity would still have come about.

[tracer]

Originally posted by TheLadyLion
The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that the souls of those who died before the death of Jesus were not permitted into heaven, but were not sent to hell, as Tracer stated.[/B]
In Dante's Inferno, he describes the First Circle of Hell as the abode of un-baptized babies, those who never heard of Christ, and those who had died before Christ. (There were a few exceptions made for folks like Moses, but everybody else who lived before Christ was consigned to the First Circle of Hell.)

Are you saying Dante's work contradicted the Catholic Church?

[zev_steinhardt]

My understanding of Catholocism (which, granted, is limited) is that those folks who lived before Jesus obtained forgiveness for their sins through sacrifice. Am I wrong on that matter?

As an aside on this theme, I'd always wondered what the Catholic position would be on people who lived during the 70 years when there was no Temple and hence no sacrifices. Are Mordechai and Esther in Hell according to the Catholics?

Zev Steinhardt

[robertliguori]

The moral laws of the universe are set up by God, just like the physical laws, and, like the physical laws, can be worked out by the exercise of human intelligence.


Cite, please?

[Meatros]

Originally posted by tracer
In Dante's Inferno, he describes the First Circle of Hell as the abode of un-baptized babies, those who never heard of Christ, and those who had died before Christ. (There were a few exceptions made for folks like Moses, but everybody else who lived before Christ was consigned to the First Circle of Hell.)

Are you saying Dante's work contradicted the Catholic Church?

This might be totally incorrect :D , but I always thought Dante's work was more political than it was religious. Or at least it was more important in political circles than it was in religious ones..

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

He would have been playing the Sands in Vegas with Sinatra, Baby, just like all the other classy cats. You dig, Baby? ;)

[martin_ibn_martin]

A funvariant, if of questionable scholarship,is proposed by Baigant and Lee in "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" , and "The Messianic Legacy"

Jesus was crucified, but survived. he lived on, and his children and their mother, Mary Magdelane, left for France with Joseph of Aramathea. There, they founded the Merovingian Dynasty, a line of Monarchs descended from Jesus. The Knights Templar and a shadowy society known as "The Priore de Sion" were founded to protect that family and ensure their eventual return to power.

They present some intriguing argumants, but I am not the Biblical scholar to judge.

Martin

[mrcrow]

if jesus hadnt been crucified we would not be discussing him
but
Jesus was crucified and so we discuss Him
they had messiah's by the sackful
only one was intended without any prevail of misinterpretation.
it would have meant god couldn't carry out his plans
but He did..:)

[mrcrow]

i wish i could edit these posts....
for Jesus to have been the Christ he needed to be crucified.. or become a sacrifice for sin...once for all for all time.
so if he didnt go the whole road he would not have become the Christ but one of the many who thought they were..before and after the real one.
:)

[lynn73]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
What about the scenario that Jesus might not have died on the cross anyway because maybe he never lived? There's no real evidence that a man named Jesus ever walked the Earth. If he really did all those miracles wouldn't historians of the day had written about him?

I would think it rather odd that someone who never lived has affected the life of mankind on this planet more than any other person. Our calendar is dated by His birth. BC and AD. I don't have any doubt that He lived on earth then and He lives now.

1 John 1:1-4

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; )3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by His4ever
I would think it rather odd that someone who never lived has affected the life of mankind on this planet more than any other person. Our calendar is dated by His birth. BC and AD. I don't have any doubt that He lived on earth then and He lives now.


There is some evidence that he existed in this very thread His4Ever, but I don't think what you've posted here is evidence.

Not to mention it's highly subjective. I mean, don't you think Abraham effected even more people? Or Moses? For starters, both effect Jewish people, as well as Muslim people, and both have been around a lot longer than Jesus.

Also, I don't think Jesus was born on 0BC. If I remember correctly, the scholars point to something like 3BC.

[Meatros]

Originally posted by His4ever
1 John 1:1-4

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; )3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

I also don't think this is going to convince anyone either, because in order for it to hold weight, you have to believe in the bible. If you believe in the bible, there's already no dispute over whether Jesus existed or not.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
Well, SentientMeat,

His4Ever, if we accept that Jesus was born as a mortal man, then we have to accept that He would have died, as all mortal men do ... if you believe His death to be necessary for our salvation (which point has, I think, been debated), then does it matter how, specifically, that death comes about?
.

Yes, it matters how it comes about. There must be shedding of blood. Please read the 9th chapter of Hebrews:

1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Meatros
I also don't think this is going to convince anyone either, because in order for it to hold weight, you have to believe in the bible. If you believe in the bible, there's already no dispute over whether Jesus existed or not.

I guess you're right Meatros. Not everyone believes the Bible and that's what I base my belief on. So if my posts don't influence or convince many here, well maybe they might say something to someone who is lurking. The Lord said His word wouldn't return to Him void (without bearing fruit) so if anything I post influences (for lack of a better word) even one person who may never even post here, then it's worth it

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11

In using Scripture, I'm well aware there are many who don't accept it. Anyone is free to disregard it if they so desire.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Meatros

Also, I don't think Jesus was born on 0BC. If I remember correctly, the scholars point to something like 3BC.

Since the gospels claim that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, and Herod died in 4 BCE, Jesus could not have been born later than that. (unless Matthew is wrong, which is possible since he completely invented the "slaughter of the innocents," as well as the exile to Egypt.)

[Meatros]

Originally posted by His4ever
I guess you're right Meatros. Not everyone believes the Bible and that's what I base my belief on. So if my posts don't influence or convince many here, well maybe they might say something to someone who is lurking. The Lord said His word wouldn't return to Him void (without bearing fruit) so if anything I post influences (for lack of a better word) even one person who may never even post here, then it's worth it

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11

In using Scripture, I'm well aware there are many who don't accept it. Anyone is free to disregard it if they so desire.


My point is that there is evidence outside of the bible, as pointed out earlier in this thread:

"The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.""

[lynn73]

Yes, I've read books where other Christians have pointed out there are non biblical evidences of the existence of Jesus. I'm not one for spending a lot of time in the library looking up all this stuff, I'm afraid. I'm assuming there's online information?

[Ranger]

Okay, I realize I'm late here but this site http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html examines the political climate under Roman rule in Jerusalem during the end of Jesus' ministry. Actually, you might want to read the whole site of this episode of Frontline, "From Jesus to Christ"

[LuthAeron]

X-ray vision said (about a thousand responces ago) that there is the scenario that Jesus not having been born, could not have been crucified. I would say that it really matters not whether Jesus was, as it is said, the [step]son of a carpenter, or if he was born a green eyed, yellow skined, bald sea monster from some distant ocean, nor if he was really born at all. What really matters is that an incredibly large amount of people beleive, not only that he was born, but that he died to save them from their sins, and so I will re-write my question...If the character of the New Testament named Jesus hadn't wanted to die for his 'father', what would have happend to us, the unsaved?... there, that should fit better, no?
In my eyes, Jesus exists in the same way that God, and Alah, and Buddah, and Brahman (hope its spelled right!!) do; in the eye of the beholder.;)

[TheLadyLion]

Originally posted by Meatros
The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."" This is actually a second, and IMO minor, reference to the Jesus that Christians follow (I say this, because Flavius Josephus makes references to men of his day named Jesus). Here is a much more direct reference to Jesus:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]

[TheLadyLion]

Originally posted by TheLadyLion
Flavius Josephus makes references to men of his day named Jesus
Oops, it should have read "...makes referenes to SEVERAL men of his day named Jesus...." , one of whom was one of the temple elders and another of whom was a notorious robber. The reference to James, as the brother of Jesus the Christ (alluded to by Meatros above) is as follows:

"[The Roman governor] Festus was now dead, and [his successor] Albinus was still upon the road. So [the high priest] Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 20.200]

[Sdrawkcab]

Originally posted by Meatros
There is some evidence that he existed in this very thread His4Ever, but I don't think what you've posted here is evidence.

Not to mention it's highly subjective. I mean, don't you think Abraham effected even more people? Or Moses? For starters, both effect Jewish people, as well as Muslim people, and both have been around a lot longer than Jesus.

Also, I don't think Jesus was born on 0BC. If I remember correctly, the scholars point to something like 3BC.

Plus, the calendar wasn't changed on the occassion of his birth, but hundreds of years later, based on estimation of when he was born. That doesn't necessarily proves that he existed, because the people who changed the calendar never knew him.

We could change the Calendar to be Before Star Trek and After Star Trek, with today being Spockember 21, 25 AST. That doesn't mean Captain Kirk was real.

I do, however, believe he existed. His's "point" provided no such eveidence, though.

[Sdrawkcab]

Originally posted by His4ever
So if my posts don't influence or convince many here, well maybe they might say something to someone who is lurking.

I have no doubt that your posts have influenced scores of people on this board. Mainly influenced them to never give Christianity any real consideration ever again. But influenced, nonetheless.

[LuthAeron]

"I have no doubt that your posts have influenced scores of people on this board. Mainly influenced them to never give Christianity any real consideration ever again. But influenced, nonetheless."

NO Christian Bashing!!!:smack: