Five Evidences that Jesus Could Have Survived the Cross

FIVE EVIDENCES THAT JESUS COULD HAVE SURVIVED THE CROSS


Before presenting here the following evidences that Jesus could have survived the cross, I take it as my duty to clarify my point, that I am not affirming that Jesus survived the cross, but that he could have. In other words, to say that Jesus died on the cross is not 100% safe to assert. It is just one more item of faith, with a high probability to have been true.

1 - According to Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian of the First Century, "It was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses, passing out and back up to three or four days till death would eventually catch up on them." Jesus was removed from his cross after only a few hours.

2 - According to Mark 15:44, when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate for permission to remove Jesus from the cross for burial, Pilate, an expert in the crufixion of thousands of Jews, "Was deeply concerned and surprised that Jesus had died so soon. Therefore, he summoned the Centurion to verify." Considering that the Roman soldiers were highly corrupt and that Joseph was quite a rich man in Israel, God knows the size of a possible bribe which affected the reply of the Centurion to Pilate that Jesus was already dead.

3 - According to Mark 16:1, when that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body, when they were surprised to see that the tombstone was removed and the tomb was empty. According to Mat. 28:2, there was an earthquake, an angel came down, removed the tombstone and became equally surprised that the tomb was indeed empty. Never mind the three days and three nights of Mat. 12:40. That supposed-to-be prophecy never fulfilled.

4 - According to John 19:39, Nicodemus, another rich man in Israel, had brought along about 100 pounds of medication to help Joseph take care of Jesus. It is highly possible that Joseph laid Jesus in his walk-in tomb for an hour or two to prevent unnecessary onlookers and returned later with his men to remove Jesus unto another safer place to mend his wounds.

5 - According to Acts 1:3, Luke said that, "After his suffering, aka, passion, Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days with many convincing proofs that he was alive, in flesh and bone, eating and driking with his disciples to prove he was not dead. (Luke 24:42,43) Focus that Luke said that Jesus appeared after his suffering (passion) and not after his death. And, if we consider resurrection here, the evidence goes way out of proportion because, to eat and drink after resurretion just as one used to before death, brings down the whole concept of the Pauline gospel of spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:35-44)

Ben

Why does it matter one way or the other?

I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

It should be fun. Right?

I want 5 evidences that there was a Jesus.

There was a Jesus. He was a real man. Why would THAT be an issue?
I would like to see five evidences that it MATTERS whether a man would have survived something TWO THOUSAND years ago....

MaineCaptain wrote:I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

I kinda feel bad for him, too. It'll be an interesting discussion, if he sticks around!

Wouldn't surviving the cross completely destroy the reason he was here in the first place?

tmarie64 wrote:There was a Jesus. He was a real man. Why would THAT be an issue?
I would like to see five evidences that it MATTERS whether a man would have survived something TWO THOUSAND years ago....

The thing is that Jesus is accepted as a historical figure as a courtesy to Christians. There is no evidence from the Romans or Jews that he did exist and they kept excellent records. Personally, I think that he probably did exist.

If he was crucified because the Romans considered him to be a possible trouble-maker and enemy of the state, they would not have allowed him to survive unless a high ranking Roman intervened. They also did not allow burial of those crucified. They usually hung there until they rotted as a warning.

If they did allow Jesus to be taken down (which is weird because I don't think the body of anyone who was crucified has ever been found - maybe one, maybe not) then the tomb part fits because as a criminal, he would have to be placed in a new tomb. It all seems to be a mix of possibles and the not so possible.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Why does it matter one way or the other?

Millions of people on earth claim that Jesus died on the cross; let alone the implications as a result of that certainty albeit by faith. And why it matters further to me? Because, IMHO, it keeps the charge of deicide on the Jews alive, which has proved to be the main cause of Antisemitism in History. Does it change your opinion?

Ben

MaineCaptain wrote:I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

You are right Maine, sometimes I think I am dealing with atheists.

Ben

gillyflower wrote:I want 5 evidences that there was a Jesus.

Has there ever been someone else whom so much has been written about? I guess that's more than 5 evidences that Jesus was here among men about 2000 years ago. But tell me Gilly, can you provide 5 evidences that your great, great, great, great, great grand mother ever existed besides yourself? No, you can't. Nevertheless, you have no problem claiming that she did exist. How does that sound to you?

Ben

tmarie64 wrote:There was a Jesus. He was a real man. Why would THAT be an issue?
I would like to see five evidences that it MATTERS whether a man would have survived something TWO THOUSAND years ago....

Wow! That's a challenge! Let us see if I can come up with those five evidences:

1. Although the Romans crucified Jesus, the NT charges the Jews with deicide. (Acts 2:36) This charge has been the main cause of Antisemitism. If Jesus survived the cross, Christians will stop blaming the Jews for it.

2. If Jesus survived the cross, the whole Pauline policy of Replacement Theology will collapse.

3. If Jesus survived the cross, he did not resurrect and the gospel of Paul will prove to be a fiasco, since he was the one who said that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:

4. If Jesus survived the cross, TV preachers will have to look for some more decent job to make a living.

5. If Jesus survived the cross, many Jews who have converted to Christianity will return to Judaism.

There, I have provided you with five evidences why it matters that Jesus survived or not the cross 2000 years ago.

Ben

Ben Masada wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Why does it matter one way or the other?

Millions of people on earth claim that Jesus died on the cross; let alone the implications as a result of that certainty albeit by faith. And why it matters further to me? Because, IMHO, it keeps the charge of deicide on the Jews alive, which has proved to be the main cause of Antisemitism in History. Does it change your opinion?

Ben

No, actually, if millions of people on earth would stop putting so much weight on the religious practices or others, and we could snuff out antisemitism in the future by not placing so much emphasis on it, I think that would be a pretty compelling reason to stop.

Ben Masada wrote:

MaineCaptain wrote:I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

You are right Maine, sometimes I think I am dealing with atheists.

Ben

No, just not monotheists. At least most of us aren't monotheists.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Ben Masada wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Why does it matter one way or the other?

Millions of people on earth claim that Jesus died on the cross; let alone the implications as a result of that certainty albeit by faith. And why it matters further to me? Because, IMHO, it keeps the charge of deicide on the Jews alive, which has proved to be the main cause of Antisemitism in History. Does it change your opinion?

Ben

No, actually, if millions of people on earth would stop putting so much weight on the religious practices or others, and we could snuff out antisemitism in the future by not placing so much emphasis on it, I think that would be a pretty compelling reason to stop.

That's easy to say. To do is something else. To snuff out Antisemitism, for instance, the first thing to do is to review the NT and to make drastic changes all over. Almost impossible task.

Ben

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Ben Masada wrote:

MaineCaptain wrote:I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

You are right Maine, sometimes I think I am dealing with atheists.

Ben

No, just not monotheists. At least most of us aren't monotheists.

What are you talking about!!! Polytheism in the 21st Century! Unheard of! At least not in developed countries.

Ben

I don't know about changes. I think that the NT would need to be read in a light granted by the OT.

You brought up on another thread RT. IMO, you hit the nail on the head. People are wanting to co-opt the stories for themselves. In doing so, they paint themselves as the heros of the piece, and the Jewish people as the villains.

So I don't think we'd have to completely revamp the NT, Christians would just have to understand that they don't represent the protagonist.

Welcome to the real world. Polytheists are everywhere. We aren't just in your face about it. But surely, even if you haven't heard of my religion, or All's, or Gorm's, you still have heard of Wicca.

Ben Masada wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Ben Masada wrote:

MaineCaptain wrote:I kind of feel sorry for Ben, He is not going to find the same responses he usually receives in other places. I hope he can hang in there.

You are right Maine, sometimes I think I am dealing with atheists.

Ben

No, just not monotheists. At least most of us aren't monotheists.

What are you talking about!!! Polytheism in the 21st Century! Unheard of! At least not in developed countries.

Ben

You've heard of it now.

Yes, Ben has heard of my religion. We are polytheists.

Ben Masada wrote:

gillyflower wrote:I want 5 evidences that there was a Jesus.

Has there ever been someone else whom so much has been written about? I guess that's more than 5 evidences that Jesus was here among men about 2000 years ago. But tell me Gilly, can you provide 5 evidences that your great, great, great, great, great grand mother ever existed besides yourself? No, you can't. Nevertheless, you have no problem claiming that she did exist. How does that sound to you?

Ben

Let's see about the logic of that....

I would say there has been a whole lot written about Mickey Mouse. Is that evidence that he is real?

No.

I can provide historical evidence for members of my family from about 600 years ago and I'm told, historical evidence that runs the family back (we are talking individuals) to around 600 AD but in my opinion that is iffy. There is more evidence of course for men and Jesus was a man. I'm a genealogist with a degree in anthropology, not to mention a librarian.

Yes, I have a real problem claiming that someone existed (in or out of my family) when there isn't any historical evidence that they did but just "stories." I cringe every time a person comes in to the library who is trying to "prove" a family story actually happened. A whole lot of them are fabrications, some of them have kernels of truth and some actually happened somewhat close to the story that is told. The real importance of family stories - and religious stories - is that they tell stories that teach members of the family (or religion) what is important to that family (or religion).

There is no historical evidence from Jesus's lifetime. The Jews had no idea who he was only a short time later. There are no records from the Romans and both of those people kept good records! As a courtesy, historians accept that Jesus did exist but there is no historical evidence that he did or he was anything like the stories that are told about him.