Gym Debate: Was Jesus Crucified?

[Kelp]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is open to debate the following issue:

Jesus was crucified.

No_crucifixion will be defending the negative and Mattsterpiece will be defending the affirmative. This debate will begin as soon as Mattsterpiece makes his first post. The debate will last 2 rounds.


From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcome here.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Mattsterpiece]

Good Morning/Evening/…Night? (depending on where you live),

I begin by thanking TWeb for providing such an excellent and efficient forum for which this debate may take place, and I’d like to express my thanks for the privilege of participating in this most crucial debate. I thank my opponent as well.

My opponent contends that it is not historically true that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross under Pilate, and seems to hold that the Bible doesn’t affirm this either. So, we shall examine, in general, whether there is evidence of Jesus’ crucifixion and whether there is evidence against this (both biblical and secular). With respect to the latter, I leave my opponent to provide his case.

That being said, I approach this debate with the same dual mentality. However, I must note, my opponent should be wary of cherry-picking for any biblical passage and decontextualizing what he reads. Biblical text used will be kerygmatic, and so false interpretations may pursue if we aren’t careful.

I should like to begin with a secular reference to this event:

Tacitus – ‘But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.’ (Annals 15.44)

That Jesus lived, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is not only a belief accepted all throughout the historical community today, but was also accepted by everyone in the time and place, contemporary with the direct disciples, and well after.

I should like to appeal to one verse from the bible of particular value, a creed which Paul records, the Corinthian Creed:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Now, this seems pretty explicit. Christ DIED for our sins. This is a creed that exists right on top of the timeframe of the event in question, thus confirming its certainty.

The Bible outlines this well. The Markan account is very early, and provides us with the following:

‘And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.’ (Mark 15.44-45)

This was common practice, and the death is confirmed to certainty for two reasons:

1) Soldiers were put to death for allowing criminals to escape

2) Jesus was a figure of particular disdain at this time by those threatened by his persona, and therefore, the higher-ups as well.

In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius all independently attested to Pilate writing a letter to Tiberius about Jesus’ crucifixion.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/histo...us-pilate.html

It remains a fact so virtually certain in history, that to doubt it remains the practice of the fringe theorist holding a theological presupposition.

I’ll end this with some final verses of major significance:

Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. (Mark 15:37)

As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day." And they were greatly distressed. (Matthew 17:22-23)

saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." (Luke 9:22)

Notice that these are correlating verses. Each author affirms what the other does specifically.

I’ll stop here, keeping this brief, so that I may get a better idea of the nature of my opponent’s doubts.

[no_crucifixion]

Dear Respected Readers and Organizer (Kelp),
The title of the debate "Was Jesus Crucified?" or in other words "did Jesus die on the cross" because to crucify is to kill somebody on the cross in a slow lingering manner in order to prolong his agony though it is ensured that victim was alive on the cross for days (not hours) in accordance with the Roman crucifixion practice.

What I will do in my second round is I will prove to you that Jesus did not die according to whatever Bible you have whether the Roman Catholic with the 73 books in or the Protestant Bible with the 66 books in or the Greek Orthodox Bible with the 76 books.

My proofs not only are from the Bible but also inclusive of the lips and the actions of Jesus in the Bible that Jesus provided and showed that he did not die beyond doubt.

In my first round, I will provide refutations to the claim of my brother Matt in support of the alleged claim that Jesus died as follows:

1) Matt’s quoting Tacitus mentioning that Jesus died is refuted when knowing this account comes from Tacitus who lived after the ascension of Jesus unto heaven. Since Tacitus was not even alive during the life of Jesus, quoting Tacitus writing cannot serve as eyewitness evidence. What is worse is that Tacitus gives no source for his claim. This shows that his writing is only hearsay account. In doing so, Matt is indeed embarrassing himself when he violates the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings of Tacitus who was born in 64 C.E and does not give a source for his claim.

2) If quoting an after-event writing that mentions Jesus died like that of Tacitus then it is more powerful to say that there is no contemporary Roman record that mentions Pilate executing Jesus.

3) Matt’s claiming “That Jesus lived, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is not only a belief accepted all throughout the historical community today, but was also accepted by everyone in the time and place, contemporary with the direct disciples, and well after” is not evidence because we do not have first-hand testimony of eye-witnesses because many Christian Scholars conclude that the disciples, the closest to Jesus, were not disciples. For example, Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School, says “The gospels are not eyewitness accounts.”

4) You saying “I should like to appeal to one verse from the bible of particular value, a creed which Paul records, the Corinthian Creed” is true that Paul believes that Jesus died and was risen from the dead BUT SPIRITUALLY as 1 Corinthians 15:50 “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” However, Jesus was not so after he was out from the tomb.

5) You mentioning “Now, this seems pretty explicit. Christ DIED for our sins” is never taught by Christ in the Gospels. Hence, there is one statements of Jesus where Jesus says I came to die for your sins.

6) The Greek text of Mark 15:45 says literally “And when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.” So the Greek text of Mark 15:45 does not have the phrase that “he was dead.”

7) Matt saying “Soldiers were put to death for allowing criminals to escape” can be true but in the case of Jesus the case is different by the Pilate, the Centurion was sympathized with Jesus as Pilate was sympathized to the extent he wanted to spare him by saying “I will therefore chastise him, and release [him]” according to Luke 23:16 because according to Pilate “I find no fault in this man” according to Luke 23:4.

8) Matt saying “In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius all independently attested to Pilate writing a letter to Tiberius about Jesus’ crucifixion” is not enough to support Jesus died because we do not have the first-hard testimony, But we have is a hearsay evidence by which a person said the other person said. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius were not present during the life of Pilate and do not provide us sources for their claim.

9) Jesus words “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" in Luke 23:46 means save me because Luke 23:46 is a fulfillment of Psalms 31:5 which says “Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me.”

10) Jesus was declared because his head bowed down (John 19:30) which is not good evidence because “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things” according to Luke 23:49. Therefore, Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died according to Mark 15:44 because crucifixion was a SLOW lingering death that took days.

11) Jesus foretelling his death was offset by Jesus later prayers to be saved from death according to Luke 22:42 and 44 which were answered to Jesus words in John 11:42 “I know you (my Father) ALWAYS answer my prayers.”

[Mattsterpiece]

The title of the debate "Was Jesus Crucified?" or in other words "did Jesus die on the cross" because to crucify is to kill somebody on the cross in a slow lingering manner in order to prolong his agony though it is ensured that victim was alive on the cross for days (not hours) in accordance with the Roman crucifixion practice.

As I thought, it was best to reserve my remaining arguments until acquiring a good understanding of my opponent’s stance. I have no comment other than the obvious torture Jesus endured as a disdained figure of a threatening persona to those in a position of power, either directly or indirectly. I figure that my opponent agrees with this.

So, from here I shall debunk the objections posed by my opponent, and provide further evidence.

1) Matt’s quoting Tacitus mentioning that Jesus died is refuted when knowing this account comes from Tacitus who lived after the ascension of Jesus unto heaven. Since Tacitus was not even alive during the life of Jesus, quoting Tacitus writing cannot serve as eyewitness evidence. What is worse is that Tacitus gives no source for his claim. This shows that his writing is only hearsay account. In doing so, Matt is indeed embarrassing himself when he violates the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings of Tacitus who was born in 64 C.E and does not give a source for his claim.

It is my aim in this debate, and has been from the start, to maintain traditional, orthodox, accepted principles of historiographical methodology. That means that we should avoid arbitrarily elevating the standards for substantiating an events historicity. My opponent is guilty of this on three counts:

1) In ancient history, historians generally don’t provide sources for their material.

2) Here, we have an enemy of the church, yet a renowned and competent Roman historian of high regard attesting to the historicity of the crucifixion. “After-the-events writings” in countless cases are the basis of the historicity of accepted historical events and figures. Our opponent is practically suggesting that we alleviate a huge chunk of antiquity. This is the sort of reasoning that we find from Christ-Mythers.

3) Finally, Tacitus is affirming an event that is attested to by numerous other reliable historical sources. Is my opponent seriously dismissing the value of multiple attestation by independent authors?

For support of his reliability as a historian, consider the following praises:

Ronald Syme, a prominent Tacitean scholar, notes that “the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars”, adding that “[he] was no stranger to industrious investigation” and his “diligence was exemplary.” [Ronald Syme, Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 281-2, 398].

Professor Ronald J. Mellor, having been a Chair of the UCLA History Department, acknowledges Tacitus’ use of other sources that include friends such as Pliny the Younger, but also goes on to note that Tacitus “does not slavishly follow, as some of his Roman predecessors did, the vagaries of his sources.” [Ronald Mellor, Tacitus (New York: Routledge, 1993), 20]. Mellor goes on to point out that “if research is the consultation and evaluation of sources, there can be little doubt that Tacitus engaged in serious research though it is not often apparent in the smooth flow of his narrative…[having] consulted both obscure and obvious sources”, also noting that Tacitus “distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian.” [Ronald Mellor, Tacitus (New York: Routledge, 1993), 31-2, 45].

Furthermore, there can be virtually no doubt that Tacitus had access to the Roman imperial archives. Pliny the Younger had described association with Tacitus as a sign of high honor. After all, he was a highly regarded political figure in the offices of Rome, and had the great honor of becoming proconsul of Asia.

2) If quoting an after-event writing that mentions Jesus died like that of Tacitus then it is more powerful to say that there is no contemporary Roman record that mentions Pilate executing Jesus.

You have no idea how broad the implications could be here though. We could apply this to a vast diversity of other historical events of this era. The fact of the matter is, we don’t have any of the Roman records themselves from this time. This is a misleading and, frankly, a very weak objection.

3) Matt’s claiming “That Jesus lived, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is not only a belief accepted all throughout the historical community today, but was also accepted by everyone in the time and place, contemporary with the direct disciples, and well after” is not evidence because we do not have first-hand testimony of eye-witnesses because many Christian Scholars conclude that the disciples, the closest to Jesus, were not disciples. For example, Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School, says “The gospels are not eyewitness accounts.”

All I find on Allen D. Callahan is that “they [the disciples] don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life.” However, he seem to advocate a view of theological reconstruction. This is evident in that he says that “in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already….. and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did.” I don’t think simply appealing to Callahan is a good historical basis for denying the historical reliability of the Gospels. Not at all.

1) Yes, the Gospels are kerygmatic, as I have already conceded, however, as JP Holding concludes in the following article, when deciding whether they are theological or historical, the answer is that “they are both”. - http://www.tektonics.org/gk/kerygma.html

2) The Synoptic Gospels are structured very similarly to ancient biographies and histories, and are incredibly reliable by the standards of their day. Parallels that we could note would be as follows: Tacitus, Josephus, Sallust, Arrian, Dio Cassius, etc. - (Terrence Callan, "The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography," New Testament Studies 31 [1985]: 576-81.)

(David E. Aune, 'The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], pg. 17-157)

3) Again, the traditional criterion surrounding multiple attestations affirms the details we find in more than one independent source are extremely likely to be authentic and historically reliable. And those details are revealed in 3 of the Gospels most of the time, and sometimes all 4. The major ones are spoken of in all four anyway, while we also have the same details affirmed in the Pauline letters, specifically here, Corinthians in particular.

4) You saying “I should like to appeal to one verse from the bible of particular value, a creed which Paul records, the Corinthian Creed” is true that Paul believes that Jesus died and was risen from the dead BUT SPIRITUALLY as 1 Corinthians 15:50 “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” However, Jesus was not so after he was out from the tomb.

The number of times this one single verse has been used in a way to sort of counter the Gospels is simply astonishing. I’m not very familiar with my opponent’s approach as far as denial to the crucifixion goes, but I suppose this might be relevant, if he’s insisting that Jesus’ death was of a different sort. Frankly, I’m befuddled, so, even though this verse is normally used in the context of other arguments, I will address it the same way I would in any of those here.

First and foremost, the derivation of ‘body’, ‘soma’, denotes the following:

"the physical body, roughly synonymous with 'flesh' in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives and acts in the world."
- [Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pg. 50]

The skeptical understanding of this testimonial from Paul derives from the likes of Bultmann, but frankly, it spits in the face of critical exegesis.

Moreover, our friend seems to be ignoring the physical examples provided by Paul in reference to the question “How are the dead raised?” This eventually brings us to the resurrection of Jesus, and to the very verse our friend has cherry-picked.

5) You mentioning “Now, this seems pretty explicit. Christ DIED for our sins” is never taught by Christ in the Gospels. Hence, there is one statements of Jesus where Jesus says I came to die for your sins.

I thought we were approaching this debate within the framework of traditional, historical methodology? This is documenting an event in an extremely early and authentic Creed. My opponent is simply refusing to deal with that. The point is, Jesus died, period. By what other means than the rigor of the crucifixion execution, my opponent still fails to mention.

Also, try: the vineyard parable (Mark 12:1-12).

“Jesus took the twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles, they will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him, and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” (Luke 18:31-32)

6) The Greek text of Mark 15:45 says literally “And when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.” So the Greek text of Mark 15:45 does not have the phrase that “he was dead.”

Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of the rock. Then he rolled a stone across the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was placed.(Mark 15:43-47)

Does anyone see a man still alive in this schematic?

7) Matt saying “Soldiers were put to death for allowing criminals to escape” can be true but in the case of Jesus the case is different by the Pilate, the Centurion was sympathized with Jesus as Pilate was sympathized to the extent he wanted to spare him by saying “I will therefore chastise him, and release [him]” according to Luke 23:16 because according to Pilate “I find no fault in this man” according to Luke 23:4.

Notice what our friend is doing here? He’s hypothesizing, and he’s straining credulity far beyond what reason will permit. Before you read in between the lines, I recommend that you exercise your capabilities in reading the actual lines first.

First and foremost, we have an assertion here, and nothing more, based on no evidence. It’s absurd for us to just espouse the idea that Jesus got out of this alive because the centurion liked him.

Secondly, Pilate wasn’t exactly in a position to do whatever he liked. He aim here was appeasing the Jewish population, in order to avoid a revolt.

Furthermore, you still haven’t given adequate reason for dismissing all of the documentation we have in support of Jesus’ historical crucifixion. All you have done is distort historical methodology. You haven’t given any good reason for us dismissing the Gospel accounts of this event, which I contend have a proven track record for historical reliability. I realize that some Muslims simply hold that the Bible is inauthentic, and has been contorted. If this is your objection, please present your case, and I’d be more than happy to alleviate this obstacle standing in your way.

8) Matt saying “In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius all independently attested to Pilate writing a letter to Tiberius about Jesus’ crucifixion” is not enough to support Jesus died because we do not have the first-hard testimony, But we have is a hearsay evidence by which a person said the other person said. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius were not present during the life of Pilate and do not provide us sources for their claim.

Here’s what Tertullian in particular states:

“But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well. And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulchre, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both to spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, gave it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked should be delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach to others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven,—a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus. All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.”
(Tertullian, Apology, XXI)

Now, with regard to the historian’s reliability, I have addressed these typical objections already. It must be stressed that Tertullian was a profound Roman scholar, and presents this information authoritatively, and, just like Martyr, presents it to the Roman officials themselves.

Ultimately though, what we have here are three different attestations, from three different historians/scholars, independently affirming the same details, and presenting these details to the Romans themselves, who could learn such by reading this account. Now, it seems to me that if we consider this within the framework of traditional historical methodology, the evidence of not only the document, but its specific contents, is overwhelming.

9) Jesus words “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" in Luke 23:46 means save me because Luke 23:46 is a fulfillment of Psalms 31:5 which says “Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me.”

This requires that the passage doesn’t record the moment of Jesus’ last breath?

10) Jesus was declared because his head bowed down (John 19:30) which is not good evidence because “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things” according to Luke 23:49. Therefore, Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died according to Mark 15:44 because crucifixion was a SLOW lingering death that took days.

Right, and in this case, Jesus died early on. Are you dismissing multiple attestation by reliable historical texts on the grounds of personal incredulity? He had been tortured tremendously, you know. Moreover, consider what Luke records: "And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. And His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44). This is today recognized as an actual medical condition called "hematidrosis". Under tremendous stress, it’s very likely that Jesus would sweat blood. So, he was already undergoing blood loss. He had suffered greatly at the hands of the Romans (which some victims didn’t even survive to get to the crucifixion), and was forced to carry the cross to the Calvary, which he needed help with.

“But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.” ( John 19:33-34)

The historical significance of this verse in particular is that, in the case of Jesus Christ, it makes complete, medical sense, which would attest to its historical genuineness. There wouldn’t be hardly any blood to pump and his kidneys likely shut down in order to preserve fluids. Dehydration is also recorded in the Gospels. All of this points to hypovolemic shock, which perfectly explains the fluids around the lungs and the heart.

11) Jesus foretelling his death was offset by Jesus later prayers to be saved from death according to Luke 22:42 and 44 which were answered to Jesus words in John 11:42 “I know you (my Father) ALWAYS answer my prayers.”

First and foremost, you’re cherry-picking, without even considering the grammar of the verse. The passage is obviously presenting a conditional statement, and moreover, it’s expressing his anguish. How many serious scholars do you honestly think find this to be grounds for supposing that the Gospels don’t teach that Jesus was crucified, and in fact, just the opposite? I’m sorry, but your logic is way off if you’re actually espousing the idea that Jesus was meant to die in the first place, but changed his mind. The Gospels surely weren’t recording it that way.



So, it would seem that our Muslim friend has absolutely no historical basis for denying the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, a fact independently attested by multiple historians of high rank, such as Tacitus and Josephus, as well as being affirmed in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a. Even the Jesus Seminar regards the crucifixion as an undeniable fact of history. All of the evidence points toward this, and many detailed facts concerning Jesus’ death, with no reason to suppose that he was “let off the hook”. This is absolutely amazing considering that Jesus’ was, historically speaking, barely a blip on the radar. Yet, we have overwhelming evidence of the events surrounding his life, crucifixion, and death. It is for this reason that I would like to invite our Muslim friend to become a Christian. If he sincerely follows all of the evidence surrounding the historical Jesus, I feel that he will not only be intellectually satisfied, but personally satisfied as well.

I have provided both biblical and secular sources to confirm the truth of the historical crucifixion, and the most my opponent seems to be capable of doing is cherry-picking for verses and distorting historical methodology. To conclude, I would like to borrow the words of professor of New Testament and Christian origins, Luke Timothy Johnson, who said, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion."
- Johnson, Real Jesus, (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 125.

[no_crucifixion]

Dear Respected Reads again,

As I mentioned in my first round, I will provide proofs that Jesus did not at all.

However, before I go into proving Jesus did not die at all, I shall provide refutations to Matt baseless claims.

REFUTING MATT'S BASELESS CLAIMS

Matt saying “It is my aim in this debate, and has been from the start, to maintain traditional, orthodox, accepted principles of historiographical methodology” is contradicted by yourself when violating historiographical methodology by using after-the-event writings such as Tacitus who was born in 64 C.E and also does not give a source for his claim in his accounts.

Matt’s claiming “In ancient history, historians generally don’t provide sources for their material” is wrong and for you’re the sake of your correction and education in this subject, please see Michael Grant, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation (1995); Charles Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (1983); John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (1997); Averil Cameron, ed. History As Text: The Writing of Ancient History (1990); Bruno Gentili & Giovanni Cerri, History and Biography in Ancient Thought (1988).

Matt’s saying ““After-the-events writings” in countless cases are the basis of the historicity of accepted historical events and figures” can be true provided that the sources for their claims are mentioned and reliable after verification.

Matt’s saying “Tacitus is affirming an event that is attested to by numerous other reliable historical sources” is wrong because non-Christian writings mentioning the alleged “crucifixion” of Jesus are after-events writings plus do not provide sources for their claims in order to verify their reliability.

Matt’s saying “Furthermore, there can be virtually no doubt that Tacitus had access to the Roman imperial archives” is wrong because in his Annals, Tacitus writing that Christians "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44) proves that Tacitus did not use Roman records because Tacitus in the above-quoted account refers to Pilate as procurator which is not true because Pilate was a prefect. Therefore, many Christians have denied that Tacitus provide independent confirmation. New Testament scholar R.T. France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested” (The Evidence for Jesus London:Hodder & Stoughton, 1986) and E.P. Sanders , another New Testament Scholar, writes also that "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993).

Matt’s saying “The fact of the matter is, we don’t have any of the Roman records themselves from this time” can be true but the fact remains that there is no contemporary record of Jesus that mentions that Jesus was “crucified”.

Quoting Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School, saying “The gospels are not eyewitness accounts” is an example to show that saying the Gospels are eyewitnesses accounts is not true. There are many other Christian Scholars who deny that the Gospels are not eyewitnesses. An example is Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36) stating “All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.” And the list does not end here.

Matt’s saying “Yes, the Gospels are kerygmatic, as I have already conceded, however, as JP Holding concludes in the following article http://www.tektonics.org/gk/kerygma.html, when deciding whether they are theological or historical, the answer is that “they are both” is not true because as Christian historians and Christian Scholars in majority conclude that the Gospels meet rules of historiography. For example, David Norman states “When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards.” (Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34.)

Matt’s saying “Moreover, our friend seems to be ignoring the physical examples provided by Paul in reference to the question “How are the dead raised?” This eventually brings us to the resurrection of Jesus, and to the very verse our friend has cherry-picked” is wrong because Paul explains that the terms “Physical Body” and “Spiritual Body” are explained by Paul in the next verse as “soul living body” like Adam and “last Adam BECAME a life-giving SPIRIT” respectively in 1 Corinthians 15:45 then Paul went on to confirm this understanding in 1 Corinthians 15:50 “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” To summarize this, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:18 “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.”

Matt’s quoting Jesus foretelling his death was cancelled by Jesus later prayers to be saved (Luke 22:42 and 44) which were answered according to Jesus own words in John 11:42 in which Jesus says “I know you (my Father) ALWAYS answer my prayers” (Contemporary English Version).

The answer to Matt’s question “Does anyone see a man still alive in this schematic?” is in Jesus own words after he came out from the tomb in the upper room where he carefully described what happened to him was SUFFERING in Luke 24:26 and 46 because the word used to describe what happened was “Pascho” meaning suffering (not death).
Matt’s saying “It’s absurd for us to just espouse the idea that Jesus got out of this alive because the centurion liked him” is true and further Jesus post alleged resurrected actions prove he did not die at all as you will see from my arguments.

Matt’s “Pilate wasn’t exactly in a position to do whatever he liked. He aim here was appeasing the Jewish population, in order to avoid a revolt” is wrong because according to Pilate’s words, his intention was to spare Jesus as he said in Luke 23:16 “I shall release him” because “I find no fault in this man” according to Luke 23:4.

Matt saying “In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius all independently attested to Pilate writing a letter to Tiberius about Jesus’ crucifixion” is not enough to support Jesus died because we do not have the first-hard testimony, But we have is a hearsay evidence by which a person said the other person said. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius were not present during the life of Pilate and do not provide us sources for their claim.

Matt’s saying “Ultimately though, what we have here are three different attestations, from three different historians/scholars, independently affirming the same details, and presenting these details to the Romans themselves, who could learn such by reading this account” is wrong because these writings are after-event- writings and do not provide us with their sources for their claims to verify them their reliability. Hence, all we have is hearsay.

Matt’s claiming “Right, and in this case, Jesus died early on” is refuted by Jesus saying in Luke 24:26 “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things (not died), and to enter into his glory?”
The answer to your question “Are you dismissing multiple attestations by reliable historical texts on the grounds of personal incredulity?” is yes because these writings are not historically reliable because these writers were not contemporary of Jesus and do not cite their sources for verification of reliability.

Matt’s claiming “There wouldn’t be hardly any blood to pump and his kidneys likely shut down in order to preserve fluids. Dehydration is also recorded in the Gospels” is refuted by John 19:34 saying blood and water FLEW (not only came out) from his SIDE (not heart) proving that he was still alive because the dead body DOES NOT BLEED medically.

Matt’s saying “Even the Jesus Seminar regards the crucifixion as an undeniable fact of history” proves nothing unless the basis for the believing in this alleged event is supported by the conditions of historiography.

Matt’s saying “It is for this reason that I would like to invite our Muslim friend to become a Christian” is appreciated from heart but no reliable evidences support your invitation.
Matt’s quoting “Luke Timothy Johnson” is refuted by the Messiah one word in Luke 24:26 that “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things.” All what happened to Jesus was SUFFERING (Greek word: PASCHO).


PROOFS FOR JESUS DIED NOT DIE

I submit to you that Jesus could not have survived the imposed death on him except by a miracle from God. And this miracle by which Jesus survived death is the miracle of Jonah according to Matthew 16:4 according to the lips of Jesus.

Indeed the ONLY miracle of Jesus is the miracle of Jonah because Jesus said in Matthew 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.” (Authorized Version)

The word ‘sign’ in the above verse means miracle because God’s Word Translation uses the phrase ‘miraculous sign’ instead of ‘sign’ as follows:

"Evil and unfaithful people look for a miraculous sign. But the only sign they will be given is that of Jonah." (Matthew 16:4, God Word’s Translation)

It becomes more evident that the word ‘signs’ in Matthew 16:4 means miracle in Good News Translation as follows:

“How evil and godless are the people of this day! You ask me for a miracle? No! The only miracle you will be given is the miracle of Jonah." So he left them and went away.” (Matthew 16:4, Good New Translation)

After establishing that the only miracle of Jesus is the miracle of Jonah, we must ask Christian Bible Commentators and Scholars what is that event in the in the Book of Jonah that violates natural laws because a miracle is an event that is above natural laws as defined at www.theopedia.com/Miracle by:

- Christian Apologist, William Craig, as “an event which is not producible by the natural causes that are operative at the time and place that the event occurs.”

- Christian Scholar, C.S. Lewis, as “an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”

In answering this question, famous Christian Bible Commentaries are quoted below:
1) “JONAH'S COMMISSION TO NINEVEH, FLIGHT, PUNISHMENT, AND PRESERVATION BY MIRACLE” (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown)

2) “Jonah was so miraculously preserved; and a miracle it was that he should not in this time be digested in the stomach of the creature; that he was not suffocated in it, but breathed and lived” (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, John Gill)

3) “The miraculous preservation of his life there in the belly of a fish (v. 17), which was his reservation for further services” and “Jonah’s life, after all, is saved by a miracle” (Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry)

4) “When he was in trouble, under the tokens of God's displeasure against him for sin: when we are in affliction we must pray. Being kept alive by miracle, he prayed.” (Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry)

5) “The miracle consisted therefore, not so much in the fact that Jonah was swallowed alive, as in the fact that he was kept alive for three days in the shark’s belly, and then vomited unhurt upon the land.” (Commentary on the Old Testament -10 Vols., DELITZSCH AND KEIL)

6) “Jonah, sent to Nineveh, flees to Tarshish, 1-3. He is overtaken by a great tempest, 4-14; thrown into the sea, 15, 16; and swallowed by a fish, in the belly of which he is miraculously preserved alive three days and three nights, 17” (Adam Clark’s Commentary)

Therefore, Jonah’s survival of death is the miracle of Jonah that violates natural laws as Matthew Henry says “Out of the eater comes forth meat; for Jonah was alive and well in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, not consumed by the heat of the animal, nor suffocated for want of air. It is granted that to nature this was impossible, but not to the God of nature, with whom all things are possible.”

To be fair to you and myself, we need for our own satisfaction to confirm the above statements made in well-known Christian Commentaries that the miracle of Jonah is surviving death are in accordance with the Book of Jonah.

In the Book of Jonah, the miracle of Jonah indeed begins when Prophet Jonah asked the people on the ship to throw him into the sea (John 1:12) as he was found the guilty person for sure after casting the lots, which was a method to know the guilty from the innocent (Jonah 1:7). And Jonah was thrown into raging sea (Jonah 1:15).

And now begins the miracle of Jonah.

When this person (Jonah) was thrown into raging sea (Jonah 1:15), we expect him to die. But this person (Jonah) remained alive praying according to Jonah 2:1 "From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God."

When this person (Jonah) was not only in the sea but also inside the fish for three days and three nights according Jonah 1:17, we expect this person (Jonah) inside the fish for three days and three nights to die. But this person (Jonah) continued to remain alive praying to God according to Jonah 2:1 "From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God." And dead men do not pray.

When this person (Jonah) was thrown out of the fish after three days and three nights, we expect this person (Jonah) to be thrown out dead. But this person (Jonah) continued to remain alive fainting according to Jonah 4:8 “And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, [It is] better for me to die than to live.” And resurrected people do not faint according to Isaiah 40:31 “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew [their] strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; [and] they shall walk, and not faint.”

From the above verses from the Book of Jonah, it is beyond doubt that the miracle of Jonah is the survival of death. Hence, the miracle of Jesus, which is the miracle of Jonah in Matthew 16:4, is also the survival of death because Jesus made it clear that the only miracle that Jesus was to give the Jews of his time was the miracle of Jonah.

The miracle of Jonah and therefore Jesus miracle according to Matthew 16:4 proven to be the survival of death of Jesus and Jonah for the three days meets the definition of miracle because a miracle is each time we expected this person (Jonah) to die, he remained alive praying to God (Jonah 2:1) for three days and three nights in the fish and fainting outside the fish (Jonah 4:8).

It is a fact that there is nothing miraculous about Jonah or Jesus inside the fish or the tomb respectively if they were dead because a miracle is you expect a person to die but he remains alive. Therefore, If Jonah was remained alive MIRACLOUSLY for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have remained alive MIRACOUSY in the tomb as he himself had foretold in Matthew 16:4!

Besides the testimonies of the Christian Scholars and Commentators that the miracle of Jonah is Jonah’s survival of death for three days and three nights, it is indeed very true that the miracle of Jonah is surviving death because there is nothing miraculous about entombment of Jonah or Jesus even for million years if Jonah or Jesus was DEAD. It is only miraculous if Jonah or Jesus was entombed but remained ALIVE because a miracle is an act that violates natural laws that he should have suffocated to death for three deaths and three nights according to natural laws. It is miraculous because you expect Jesus or Jonah to be dead when thrown into the sea or when nailed to the cross or in his entombment for three days and three nights, but he remains alive. This is a miracle.

In summary, "the miracle of Jonah is not three days and three nights in the belly of fish, since there may be countless that never came out. The miracle is coming out of most certain death. For Jonah survived and as I might add not ghostly but with body, mind and everything else intact. Also, whether Jesus stayed for three days and three nights in dome or cave is also not worthy of anything since we know humans lived in caves for ages as this is quit ordinary. The miracle has to be similar but not exact to the miracle of Jonah. But it must include surviving certain death, crucifixion. The current belief is to believe that Jesus died on the cross and his ghost departed his body. This does not present any miracle as there may be countless others who died on cross (plus Jonah was not resurrected). The miracle must be his bodily survival from crucifixion (because Jonah's miracle is the survivalof death). For any other interpretation does not amount to miracle and whatever miracle is consider must be hand-in-hand with Jonah’s miracle." (Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories)

Proof No.2) After Jesus had said that he will die and before Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and before his arrest, Jesus prayed against death as follows;

“And he went a little further, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will but as thou will." (Matthew 26:39)

“Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

“And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:44)

Though Jesus did leave it up to God's will, in reality God answered Jesus above prayers to avoid death because Jesus said to the Father "I know that you always answer my prayers" in John 11:42 (Contemporary English Version). Therefore, there is no doubt that God answered Jesus prayers to be saved from death before his arrest since according to Jesus God always answer his prayers (John11:42).

Proof No.3) when Jesus was declared to be dead, Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died according to Mark 15:44 "And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling [unto him] the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead."

The reason behind the surprise of Pilate in Mark 15:44 is that the victims of crucifixion do not die in less than 6 hours time period which was the period of Jesus nailed to the cross.

Proof No.4) Yes the Centurion in Mark 15:45 confirmed Pilate. But whether it was a confirmation of death or survival, Mark 15:45 does not state. Therefore, claiming that confirmed Jesus was dead is assumption because the Greek text of Mark 15:45 says " And when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", so we do not know what Pilate knew of the centurion till Luke, Paul’s disciple, says in Acts 13:37"the one whom God raised did not see corruption." Therefore, Jesus body did not see corruption because Jesus did not die because "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption" according to 1 Corinthians 15:42.

Proof No. 5) John 19:36 mentions that his legs were not broken as a fulfillment of a prophecy in Psalm 34:20 "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken" in order to rescue him (Jesus) because Psalm 34:19 says "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all."

Proof No. 6) Jesus body in the tomb did not decay for three days and three nights according to Acts 13:37 "he (Jesus) whom God raised did not see corruption" because Jesus was not dead in the tomb because in three days the corpse begins to decay from within. Had Jesus been dead when buried and in the grave for three days, his body would have decayed in twenty four hours because "Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death" according to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. Not only confirmed by science but also 1 Corinthians 15:42 which says "it (the dead body) is sown in corruption." This is why Martha said to Jesus in John 11:39 "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days."

Proof No.7) Jesus breathed his last on the cross not because he actually died but actually because Jesus lost his consciousness due the drink that Jesus was given on the cross according to Jewish Encyclopedia which testifies “The details given in the New Testament accounts (Matt. xxvii. and parallels) of the crucifixion of Jesus agree on the whole with the procedure in vogue under Roman law. Two modifications are worthy of note: (1) In order to make him insensible to pain, a drink (ὁξος, Matt. xxvii. 34, 48; John xix. 29) was given him. This was in accordance with the humane Jewish provision (see Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 43a)."

Proof No. 8) After Jesus came from the tomb, Jesus appeared only to his disciples according to Acts 10:40-41 asking them in Luke 24:39 to touch his hands and feet. However, Jesus never appeared even once to his alleged KILLERS of the Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15) because he did not die because the resurrected will be raised incorruptible according to 1 Corinthians 15:52. Had Jesus died, Jesus should have appeared in the same flesh and bones that he appeared to the disciples in Luke 24:39 to his alleged killers of the Jews to fulfill the miracle of Jonah that Jesus promised the Jews of his time in Luke 11:29-30 and because his killers the Jews were lost and Jesus said “I have not come but only the lost sheep of the house of Israel”

Proof No.9) After Jesus came out of the tomb, Jesus was alive but not after death but after suffering according to Acts 1: 3 which says “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” Therefore, Jesus did not die but suffered because death requires termination of one’s life but suffering requires that the person remains alive. Acts 1:3 use the word 'passion' or 'suffer' which both are translated from the Greek word "Pascho' which means "to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death as proved from the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. An example is given in the words of Mark 8:31 where Jesus said “And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must SUFFER many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be KILLED, and after three days rise again.” Hence, it is clear that suffering and killing are totally different from each other because if “kill” and “suffer” mean the same thing, there would be no point to use one or the other.

Proof No. 10) Jesus actions prove Jesus was in disguised in pubic because the two disicpless on the way to Emaus WALKED, TALKED, ATE with Jesus and SPENT Night with them (Luke 24:13-32) but his closest people could not recognise him (Luke 24:16). Disguise is not necessary if Jesus was "resusrrected" because the resurrected cannot die again according to 1 Corinthains 15:52 "the dead will be raised incorruptable."

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

Debate over.

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