Biblical Evidence Jesus was not Killed

[Murad]

If you can spare a few minutes; please watch this video.
Using the Bible alone; Jesus was shown not to be killed.

This is the main video; that is a must watch.
(The talk starts at 2minutes)


If you dont have time; here are the summarised points:

[East of Eden]

Hard to understand, but what nonsense. Some of the times cited where Jesus was alive were after His resurrection. All of the contemporary ancient world accounts, Christian and non-Christian, agreed Jesus died on the cross. You are alleging a fantastic conspriracy with no evidence.

People don't normally die for a lie.

[LiamOS]

Hard to understand, but what nonsense. Some of the times cited where Jesus was alive were after His resurrection. All of the contemporary ancient world accounts, Christian and non-Christian, agreed Jesus died on the cross. You are alleging a fantastic conspriracy with no evidence.

People don't normally die for a lie.

The evidence he has doesn't seem a whole lot weaker than the evidence for this resurrection.

People don't normally get up after being killed.

[East of Eden]

The evidence he has doesn't seem a whole lot weaker than the evidence for this resurrection.

The OP question was whether Jesus was killed, not whether He was resurrected. Ancient historians confirm He died on the cross.

People don't normally get up after being killed.

Not normally, no.

[LiamOS]

The OP question was whether Jesus was killed, not whether He was resurrected. Ancient historians confirm He died on the cross.

Would you care to cite these historians such that we can see the detail of the accounts, etc.?

I'd also add that if Jesus was never killed... From what was he resurrected?

[McCulloch]

Would you care to cite these historians such that we can see the detail of the accounts, etc.?

They are known to us as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I'm sure you know how to access English translations of their accounts.

[East of Eden]

Would you care to cite these historians such that we can see the detail of the accounts, etc.?

According to Wikipedia, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapian, and Lucian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I'd also add that if Jesus was never killed... From what was he resurrected?

I'm sure Murad doesn't believe in the Resurrection either.

[LiamOS]

According to Wikipedia, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapian, and Lucian.

Would it have been so difficult to actually show the accounts specifically, rather then direct me to a very general page on the matter?
Here are the accounts to which you refer, as far as I can tell:

Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not� die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, some scholars believe this describes the fall of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.

That's quite vague, isn't it? It's also decades after Jesus supposedly died.
Unsurprisingly, I don't think this makes a very compelling case for Jesus' death.

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus. For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".

This is a much clearer account, but it's still the best part of a century after the supposed event. I would personally consider this reasonable evidence if used in conjunction with other sources, but not very viable on its own.

All I could find of Lucian was the following:

Greek satirist Lucian refers to Jesus only as "the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."

This is about as vague as I could possibly imagine.


East of Eden, do you know of any non-Christian writings concerning Jesus' existence, movements, doings, etc. written during or very shortly after the fact which outline such in reasonable detail while corroborating Biblical claims of such events?
Without such accounts, I personally consider such claims to be lacking sufficient evidence.

I'm sure Murad doesn't believe in the Resurrection either.

My point was that if you're using the Bible to make the case for Jesus not having been killed, the large parts about the Resurrection make no sense.

[East of Eden]

Here are the accounts to which you refer, as far as I can tell:
"]Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not� die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, some scholars believe this describes the fall of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.

That's quite vague, isn't it? It's also decades after Jesus supposedly died.

If it was written in 73 AD, it would explain the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. What other 'wise king' do you think it refers to, Herod maybe?

Tacitus]Wikipedia[/url]"]Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus. For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".

This is a much clearer account, but it's still the best part of a century after the supposed event. I would personally consider this reasonable evidence if used in conjunction with other sources, but not very viable on its own.

It is much nearer the events than from where Murad stands. If confirmation from someone described as Rome's greatest historian won't do it for you, I don't know what else I can say. Do you doubt everything else Tacitus writes about?

All I could find of Lucian was the following:

Greek satirist Lucian refers to Jesus only as "the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."

This is about as vague as I could possibly imagine.

Nothing vague there, it refers to Jesus as the founder of the religion, and says he was crucified. Isn't such evidence what you asked for?

East of Eden, do you know of any non-Christian writings concerning Jesus' existence, movements, doings, etc. written during or very shortly after the fact which outline such in reasonable detail while corroborating Biblical claims of such events?
Without such accounts, I personally consider such claims to be lacking sufficient evidence.

The Wikipedia reference discusses many other references to Jesus, I only mentioned the ones referring to His death. You can't discount the Gospel accounts either. From the same source:

"The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus,[7][8][9] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]"

My point was that if you're using the Bible to make the case for Jesus not having been killed, the large parts about the Resurrection make no sense.

If you refer to the way Murad picks and chooses what part of the Bible is genuine, I agree that is odd. Personally, I reject all of the Koran.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Funnily enough, even the Qur’�n supports the death of Jesus.

�لما تو�يتني

Usually mistranslated as ‘when you took me up’, the ‘Arabic here from 5:117 features Jesus saying to all�h: “When you caused me to die�.