Did Jesus Survive the Cruxifixtion? (punished, heaven, exist, testimony)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

No, the whole Christian faith resides upon the foundation that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and was roused from the dead the third day.

So, what I'm hearing is that:

1] Jesus created the Heavens and the Earth and Humans and everything else in 6 Days, and on the 7th Day he rested, because, it was physically or mentally draining. In that case, I can understand why Jesus totally botched the Creation.

2] Then Jesus created Satan just to torment people.

3] Then Jesus told Adam & Eve not to eat a certain fruit knowing full well that they would eat it anyway, because the Satan thing that Jesus created to torment people talked Adam & Eve into eating the "forbidden fruit."

4] Then Jesus gets upset because Adam & Eve did exactly what he foresaw they would do and casts them out of the Garden and curses Eve with Menses, Cramps, and PMS since he botched the Creation in the first place.

5] Next Jesus holds a contest between Ka'in and Abel knowing full well in advance that he would choose Abel as the winner and that as a result of Jesus choosing Abel as the winner, Ka'in would murder Abel.

6] After that, Jesus bans Ka'in but then later applies a double standard by insisting that "any one who strikes another so that he dies shall be put to death."

7] Much later, Jesus decides that not only are Humans evil, wicked and corrupt, but also that plants and animals are evil and wicked, and murders all of them in "the Flood"

8] Jesus spares Noah and his family and also the Nephilim who were on the Earth in the days before and after "the Flood."

9] After murdering a whole bunch of people for petty reasons (like spilling their seed on the ground), Jesus decides that the Hebrews don't love him enough, so he sends an army to destroy the northern Kingdom of Israel and they are taken into captivity, but spares the southern Kingdom of Judah.

10] After that, Jesus decides that the whole sacrifice thing is totally stupid and that having altars and temples to Jesus everywhere is demeaning, degrading and debasing to Jesus, so he changes all of the sacrifice laws and sacrifice rituals and outlaws all temples and altars except the one in Jerusalem in a new book called Deuteronomy.

11] In spite of all that Josiah did for Jesus, the great and wonderful Jesus let Josiah get riddled with flaming arrows launched by Pharaoh Necho's archers and then Josiah's dead body is drug around and mutilated further before being dumped in Jerusalem.

12] Then because the Hebrews weren't loving Jesus enough, he sends an army to destroy the Kingdom of Judah and all the Hebrews are taken into captivity.

13] 7 Centuries later, Jesus decides that the whole plan he concocted is FUBAR and that he should go down to Earth and walk around for a while and then die and come back to life to save everyone.

Did I miss anything?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

One soldier pierced His side while He was still alive:
Mat 27:49 Yet the rest said, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming, and
saving him. Now another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out
came water and blood." Mat 27:50 Now Jesus, again crying with a loud
voice, lets out the spirit."

The other soldier, AFTER Jesus was already dead, but to absolutely ensure
Jesus was dead pierced His side again:

Joh 19:33 Yet, coming on to Jesus, as they perceived He had already died,
they do not fracture His legs."
Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a lance head, and
straightway out came blood and water."

Originally Posted by Eusebius

If you look in the Vaticanus and Sinaticus uncial Greek mss. they both include Christ being stabbed. Alexandrinus did not include it in Matthew 27:49

I will italicize what Alexandrinus mss. did not include in 27:49:

Yet the rest said, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming, and saving
him. Now another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out came
water and blood."

The following manuscripts....


Siniaticus (4th Century Alexandrian)
Vaticanus (4th Century Alexandrian)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th Century Alexandrian/Western)
Boernerianus(9th Century Western)
Regius(8th Century Alexandrian)


....claim add a sentence, “And another took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.”



Theologians agree that the parallel to John 19:34 it so great that it is an insert.


These manuscripts do not have it...



Alexandrinus(5th Century Alexandrian)
Bezae/Cantabrigiensis (5th Century Western)
Washingtonianus (5th Century Byzantine/Western)
Koridethi (9th Century Caesarean)
E1 (12th-14th Centuries Caesarean)
E13 (11th-15th Centuries Byzantine/Western/Caesarean)
MSS#33 (9th Century Alexandrian)

Originally Posted by Eusebius

To answer the OP, Jesus did not survive the crucifixion. He was stabbed twice, once before He died and once after He did to make absolutely certain He was dead.

But he wasn't dead and stabbing him doesn't prove he was, especially since "blood and water flowed." Dead people don't bleed.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

It is possible the lungs fill with water and as the spear pierced the lung water came out along with some blood.

No, it doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Obviously this happened just before He died and right after He died. It is not like they waited days or even hours to spear Him again after He died.

It doesn't matter. I take it you have never seen people die. It's quite the experience. Once the heart stops, gravity takes over. The blood would have instantly started pooling in the lower part of the body, and yes that would have caused capillaries to burst and you end up with what we call lividity marks where blood has pooled in the lowest parts (since blood is a liquid and like all liquids seeks its own level).


If Jesus did die and was really resurrected, then why does he hide?


Who was Jesus putting on a show for, humanity or to his disciples?


Why doesn't Jesus appear before Pontius Pilate?


He can't. Jesus is not dead, and if he shows up at the palace, one of the guards would stab him with a sword or spear, and then he really would die (and not be resurrected).


Why doesn't Jesus appear before the Pharisees and Sadducees?


He can't.


Jesus is not dead and if shows his face before the Pharisees they would kill him for real (and he would not be resurrected since that just doesn't happen at all).


Why doesn't Jesus appear before the Sanhedrin?


Same reason: He can't.



The Sanhedrin would either kill Jesus for real or take him to Pilate who would then have him killed for real.


See, Jesus is a charlatan huckster. He never appears before anyone who really matters. Appearing before the disciples, well, that's like a con-artist talking it over with his crew.


Why doesn't Jesus appear in China? Or India? or Saudi Arabia?



Why doesn't Jesus appear before the Hopewell or Adena people in the Great Lakes Region?


Why not before the Maori in New Zealand or Australian Aborigines? Don't they get no love? Aren't they worthy to know about Jesus?


How come Jesus doesn't show up before any of the peoples in Central or South America? Don't they get no love either?


Or was that part and parcel of the Grand Divine Plan? Why appear before the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans and instantly convert them to christianity? Probably because it would be more fun to have the Imperial Roman Catholic Church come and convert them under threat of death.


Right?


Not impressed with Jesus...


Mircea

Originally Posted by Rafius

Josephus and Tacitus both mentioned Hercules too. Do you believe Hercules existed because Josephus and Tacitus mentioned him?

Joe and Tacitus had any no better knowledge about it than you or I. They were both repeating stories they had heard from Christians.

And those christians had heard the stories from others who had heard the stories from others....


Urban legends..
.
Mircea

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Both Josephus and Tacitus mention his execution.

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

They were historians however, and used critical methods in order to root out what they believed did happen.

They did not use "critical methods."

As historians, had they used "critical methods" then they would have relied on (in no particular order):

1] Their personal observation of the event;

2] Witnesses to the event that they interviewed;

3] Documents attesting to the event.

They used none of those things.

Instead, they relied on "someone said that someone said that someone heard something about what someone said who heard something about something so said someone else."

For example, neither of them say, "I went to Jerusalem and reviewed historical documents and saw that on this date, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate."

Not only did they not go, they did no send any researchers to go review whatever possible documentation might have existed, nor did they attempt to locate or interview possible eye-witnesses.

There's also a large body of evidence that the texts were edited and amended by christians to include additional material.


Critically...


Mircea

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

After Jesus recovered and encountered his apostles, they didn't believe he was alive. He told them to feel his wounds, to prove he was flesh and not spirit. After touching his wounds, they believed that he wasn't dead, but alive.

John's claims:

1] Jesus appeared before 10 of the disciples in an undisclosed location where the disciples had the doors and windows shut and locked. Thomas was not present.

2] Jesus appears an 2nd time in the previous location with all disciples (including Thomas) present.

3] Jesus appears a third time before 7 disciples near the Sea of Tiberias.

Luke's claims:

Luke never claims that Jesus met with all of the disciples. He states only that Jesus appears before two people walking the road toward Emmaus, and that Jesus eats with them in Emmaus. Also, Luke does not expressly claim to have been a witness or participant in that event, rather he seems to be relating a story told to him by others.

Mark's claims:

Mark makes no such claims that Jesus appeared before anyone.

Some later "manuscripts" (and I use the term loosely) continue Mark beyond 16:8. In those verses, Mark makes the following claims:

1] He appeared 1st to Mary Magdalene

2] He appeared before two people heading toward the country. I believe this is a reference to the story related by Luke about the two men walking the road to Emmaus.

3] Then he appeared to the 11 disciples.

Marks claims clearly contradict John's.

Matthew's claims:

Matthew claims that Jesus met all 11 disciples only once in the mountains. That contradicts the claims of the other three.

Biblically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Mattie Jo

The problem with the blood and water is this: dead bodies do not bleed because blood coagulates quickly once the heart stops pumping.

That is correct.

Physiologically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by hljc

See the Gospels contradict the account that this TV story or some one told you who was not there

And as I previously have shown, the "gospels" contradict each other.

Originally Posted by hljc

See Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead or there would not be a Christian Religion of the plan of the Living God for Gods Judgment for the blessing of the blood of Jesus were all blessing come for people who reject the sin of dark spirits authority who led deceived people to kill Jesus

Jesus did not die, he was not resurrected, and there is no plan.

Originally Posted by hljc

... See God could not save anybody if the cross of Christ did not happen....

Why not? I don't have to brutally sacrifice someone in order to save others. How come I can do that, but your god cannot? And that doesn't make any sense, since Jesus is god, right?

"See Jesus could have save anybody if the cross of Jesus did not happen."

Right?

Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same, otherwise, you have polytheism with two different gods, Yahweh and Jesus.

Jesus is going to destroy Earth. Not a very cool thing to do.

Amused...


Mircea

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

O.K. very good. I see you are doing your research.

It seems to me that all four accounts are like four different witnesses in a court room. Each person saw something different concerning the crime from different vantage points.

Not all saw the exact same thing but together they piece together the puzzle for the jury to see just what occurred.

First of all, the witness in Luke's account said it was dark from the 6th to the 9th hour, The witness did not see the soldier nor the non-descript person stab Jesus before or after he died. Maybe he was far away enough to see the curtain rent but too far enough away to see the soldier or person stab Him due to the darkness. He may have seen some of the events take place prior to Christ's death.

The witness that Mark interviewed also did not see the stabbing of Christ but in Mark 15:33 the witness tells Mark it was really dark. It could be he too was not close enough to witness the stabbing but did witness other things.

The witness in Matthews account said it was really dark from about noon to around three. He witnessed Christ being stabbed by a non-descript person before He died. It could be the witness in Matthew's account either turned his back to the cross at the time the soldier stabbed Christ after He was already dead. It could be both Mark and Matthew's witnesses were near the cross in the darkness and saw some of what went on then stepped away further from the cross in the darkness.

The witness in John's account does not say it was dark. It was dark but he just didn't mention it. However, it is possible he was closer to the cross and saw the soldier stab Christ possibly an hour or so after He was already dead. It is possible the witness in John's account turned his back to the cross at the time the non-descript person stabbed Christ while He was alive.

Together, all the witnesses tell us all that occurred.

Not so fast. I will first want to get to the bottom of why that additional line isn't in any Gospel version I have seen up to now and how valid it is before i even begin to consider how it affects the story.

First, I ask again

"So the first thing is that verse you link to differs from your post. You replaced the giving of wine on a sick with the stabbing. Do you agree that the correct version in the link you gave says that wine is first given, THEN his side is stabbed and then Jesus expires?"

This exchange explains some of it.

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Except the translation of 27:49 is not believed to be original by all scholars. Even the eminent late bruce metzger believed it was an addition based on john Note on Western Non-Interpolations.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Here is an interesting quote on this subject:

"Matthew 27:49 is a case in point. The Revised Version of 1881 put into its
margin words which have been described as "the startling statement that
our Lord's side was pierced before death." The margin of this English
version reads: "Many ancient authorities add, And another took a spear
and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood." But why put it
in the margin? Evidently because the weight of critical opinion judged
against its inclusion in the text.

"James Moffatt, when dealing with this verse, includes the words in square
brackets; [Seizing a lance, another pricked his side, and out came water
and blood]. Constantine Tischendorf, in his Tauchnitz Edition of the A.V.
New Testament, puts in the footnotes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have in
this verse the addition; "but another took a spear and pierced his side."
Dr. Weymouth, in his Resultant Greek Testament, puts in the footnotes
that Westcott and Hort enclosed the words in square brackets in their
Greek text. But, in his Modern Speech Version, Weymouth does not
include the words."
(Unsearchable Riches, vol.144, p.147)

If Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have in this verse the addition; "but another took a spear and pierced his side." then I am willing to consider that it might have been in the original Matthew but left out for some reason, but I first want to be confident that it hasn't been left out for some good reason. I shall 'research' a bit more.


A scribe decided to insert a paraphrase from John 19:34. The reading is ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἔξηλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα (And another one taking a spear stabbed his side, and water and blood came out). First of all, this variant reading is supported by some really good 4th and 5th century witnesses including Codex Sinaiticus which is the oldest complete Greek Bible. Now at first glance, this seems to be just an attempt to make the passage conform with John 19:34, but in the process, the scribe makes it seem that it was the spear that killed Jesus and not the crucifixion! The reading didn’t make as future scribes corrected it. If this reading had stood, it would have presented us with a quite different outlook on the death of Jesus. This is how the reading would have looked within the main passage:
49 And the rest were saying, “Leave him alone! Let us see if Elijah comes to deliver him.” And another one taking a spear stabbed his side, and water and blood came out. 50 And Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, released the spirit.
The question now remains: Why would a scribe present such a reading as this in a place where it would seem that a spear was responsible for Jesus death?

Mircea gives a list of the Mss with this passage.....claim add a sentence, “And another took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.”

"The following manuscripts....


Siniaticus (4th Century Alexandrian)
Vaticanus (4th Century Alexandrian)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th Century Alexandrian/Western)
Boernerianus(9th Century Western)
Regius(8th Century Alexandrian)"


http://biblicalgreeknuggets.blogspot...-studying.html

This site, while indulging in some speculation, nevertheless quotes some significant remarks (in the course of disagreeing with the theory of Hermann Hoeh) on the works which contain this (extra stabbing) passage from authorities who demand some attention. (I leave the site's bawling capitals in place).

The Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, published by Cassell, Petter and Galpin of London, has this to say about the Codex Vaticanus (B):

It appears to have belonged to the Vatican Library (where it is numbered 1,209) from a time not long subsequent to its formation by Pope Nicholas V [1328-30 A.D.]. It now consists of 146 leaves of thin vellum, written in three columns on a page, except in the poetical books of the Old Testament, where there are only two. THE ANCIENT WRITING IS DEFECTIVE in the first forty-six chapters of Genesis, in part of the Psalms, also in the NEW TESTAMENT from Heb. IX. 14 to the end of that book, the four pastoral epistles, and the Apocalypse. These DEFECTS (with the exception of the pastoral epistles) have been supplied by a much more RECENT HAND...ANOTHER HAND HAS RETOUCHED the ancient FADED letters, and the same (or some other posterior to the ORIGINAL scribe) has ADDED the accents and breathings. Large initial letters have been placed at the beginning of the several books, INSTEAD of those of the original scribe, which were of the same size as the others in the line. -- Article "Vaticanus, Codex (B)," p. 542.

We can see here that quite a bit of TAMPERING (by various hands) has taken place in this codex, thus throwing doubt on the ACCURACY of the work.

The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

The other Codex used by Herman Hoeh to prove that the verse "But another taking a spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out," should be included in Matthew 27:49, is known as a PALIMPSEST. A palimpsest is a manuscript whose original text was SCRAPPED OFF AND WRITTEN OVER with another text. In a large number of cases the new text DOES NOT FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL and is frequently NOT BIBLICAL!

Such is the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. Known as "C," it "originally contained the whole NT. Now, however, approximately half of every book is lacking and 2 Thessalonians and 2 John are entirely gone...SEVERAL HANDS HAVE CORRECTED the MS. Brought to Italy from the East in the 16th cent., it came to France with Catherine de' Medici and is now in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 816).

The number of sources Hoeh claims has this "missing verse" in the text is MINUSCULE in comparison to the total number of manuscripts that have come down to us -- reportedly 13,600! If Hoeh's sources do indeed contain this verse, then only 0.18% of the total available manuscripts provide evidence of Hoeh's assertions! That's not what I would call overwhelming proof! I have not been able to check out ALL off Herman Hoeh's sources, but The Multilinear Translation of the New Testament, edited by Jay Green, states that the enigmatic verse was inserted into the text of Matthew by B (Codex Vaticanus) and OMITTED BY EVERY OTHER MANUSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE! (Sovereign Grace Book Club, Indiana. 1958, page 197).

The preface to the New King James Bible goes on to say:

On the other hand, THE GREAT MAJORITY of existing manuscripts are in SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT. Even though many are later [than Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus], and none is earlier than the fifth century, most of their readings are VERIFIED by ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the writings of the early church fathers. This LARGE BODY of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible [which omits Herman Hoeh's verse]. It is the Greek text USED BY GREEK-SPEAKING CHURCHES FOR MANY CENTURIES, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or RECEIVED TEXT, of the New Testament.


The Codex Sinaiticus
The manuscript preferences cited in many CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATIONS of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a RELATIVELY FEW manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS, is due to the greater age of these documents. However, in spite of the age of the material, some scholars have shown reasons to DOUBT THE FAITHFULNESS OF THESE MANUSCRIPTS TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT, since they often DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER and show OTHER SIGNS OF UNRELIABILITY. -- The Holy Bible: The New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, N.Y. 1983. Preface p. V.

Now, disagreements withing the gospels, let alone various Bible versions is grist to my mill of disbelief, but whether Sinaiticus is to be considered trustworthy requires that we consider some other divergencies.

Luke 1:26 (Sinaiticus) And the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth. We know today that this is wrong. Nazareth is in Galilee as it was then.

Rev 7:4 and 14:3 both mention the 144,000 in the KJB. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

I also read that Sinaiticus may alter the age of Methuselah so that he survived the flood, but that would depend on how you date the Flood, I suppose.

Of course, I realize that the Sinaiticus passage about the first stabbing appears also in those other versions, so it seems that there was an Alexandrian tradition, with this passage that didn't get into the majority of western Bibles (1).

Since it's pretty clear that your post, Eusebius, was wrong to replace the wine on a stick with the stabbing and the stabbing followed the wine- giving passage, I'll ask another question which was posed in some of those sites:

How does it grab you that Jesus didn't die of his own volition or through the spirit leaving him, but because he was killed by one of the executioners?

(1) Mircea posted: These manuscripts do not have it...

Alexandrinus(5th Century Alexandrian)
Bezae/Cantabrigiensis (5th Century Western)
Washingtonianus (5th Century Byzantine/Western)
Koridethi (9th Century Caesarean)
E1 (12th-14th Centuries Caesarean)
E13 (11th-15th Centuries Byzantine/Western/Caesarean)
MSS#33 (9th Century Alexandrian)

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Mircea

They did not use "critical methods."

As historians, had they used "critical methods" then they would have relied on (in no particular order):

1] Their personal observation of the event;

2] Witnesses to the event that they interviewed;

3] Documents attesting to the event.

They used none of those things.

Instead, they relied on "someone said that someone said that someone heard something about what someone said who heard something about something so said someone else."

For example, neither of them say, "I went to Jerusalem and reviewed historical documents and saw that on this date, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate."

Not only did they not go, they did no send any researchers to go review whatever possible documentation might have existed, nor did they attempt to locate or interview possible eye-witnesses.

There's also a large body of evidence that the texts were edited and amended by christians to include additional material.


Critically...


Mircea

Yes it's known parts of joshephus that add a little more luster to the situation of christ were added. But the basic passage referring to him living, and dying, and having a following fit his literary style. Considering joshephus living in judea within the time frame of Jesus disciples, chances are he had met some people who had known him. Tacitus less so, but given his rank he had access to records that would have confirmed his story. Even historians back then had methods to confirm sources and did not just slop things in without making some attempt to confirm. Granted josphephus doesn't mention his sources to my remembrance and tacitus does only a few times, but that is not abnormal about writers in antiquity. Now of course that doesn't mean mistakes weren't made or they could be relying on faulty data. In which case we use independent attestation to confirm it as fact.

Plus there are elements to the gospels esp mark that someone wanting to create a religion just would not have added. I.e. the agony in the garden,the theme of adoptionism ,the spin attempt to turn jesus from an obvious follower of john the baptist, and the fact you would let jesus actually be scourged and die, when the concept of the messiah was either supposed to be a cosmic priest of sorts or a warrior. I don't disagree that there is a lot of bs that never happened in those books. However i do feel there is enough proof to the fact he was a real person arrested,and killed for sedition.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by nmnita

What an interesting thread. I remember, not many years ago asking our priest in NM about the virgin birth. I had mentioned I had trouble with this and I do think I am a good Christian, our priest (episcopal and female, I will add) told me I was not alone and many who are good Christians also doubt the Easter story. I had never thought about it, now I do.

For some their faith is so strong they do not doubt and I wish I could be that strong but I just am not.

Nita

Nice post. Yes, I do find these sorts of discussions and puzzles very diverting and I always learn something. I had never heard before of that extra spear - stab before Eusebius brought it to my attention.

P.s maybe you'd like to start a thread to talk about how one can take on board some doubts about the actual factuality of some at least of the Bible claims and still remain a good Christian.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Mircea

But he wasn't dead and stabbing him doesn't prove he was, especially since "blood and water flowed." Dead people don't bleed.

Mulțumesc. This is what I said from the beginning

Originally Posted by Mircea

Or India?

How do you know he didn't appear in India? A fair amount of people in India and Kashmir think he did, after he left Palestine.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Jesus did not die, he was not resurrected, and there is no plan.

Agreed. At least, he didn't die on the cross.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same, otherwise, you have polytheism with two different gods, Yahweh and Jesus.

They get around that problem by saying there's a Trinity. Jesus and Yahweh are not the same. Jesus was just a guy, albeit a very spiritual and visionary one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Piquing up where I left off

"Since it's pretty clear that your post, Eusebius, was wrong to replace the wine on a stick with the stabbing and the stabbing followed the wine- giving passage, I'll ask another question which was posed in some of those sites:

How does it grab you that Jesus didn't die of his own volition or through the spirit leaving him, but because he was killed by one of the executioners?"
since Eusebius is still thinking that one out, I'll summarize where we are.

Eusebius hasn't the best track - record in credibility, but here, since he was able to direct me to relevant stuff which I researched, I am willing to accept that Eusebius' pre- death stab -wound in Matthew has merit. Notwithstanding that a lot of people contest the authenticity of the Bibles in which it appears.

The reason why is logical assessment of all the relevant factors. If it was just in ONE of those Bibles, I would dismiss it as the work of some monkish scribe helping God out out by correcting his omissions. But it appears in -what, five copies, mostly indicating the Alexandrian tradition, which theists will recall, was Gnostic, dualist and of course heretical.

That's unimportant . What is important is that it suggests to me that it was a tradition -unlike the Latin one which spawned the billions of Bibles spreading over the literate world like a plague, but deserves to be considered as valid, since it could well have been one of those bits which Eusebius (Constantine's secretary) thought the Bible was better off without when he prepared his Approved Bibles for distribution to all the churches on which he could force them.

So the upshot is that - even where our pal Eusebius is concerned, if he comes up with something supported by evidence, I will admit my error and take the point on board, even if I have to do most of the research for him.

That's the way logical reasoning and evidence and I work. And now, on with the show. Because all it does is add yet another discrepancy to an already discrepancy- littered crucifixion story.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Piquing up where I left off

"Since it's pretty clear that your post, Eusebius, was wrong to replace the wine on a stick with the stabbing and the stabbing followed the wine- giving passage, I'll ask another question which was posed in some of those sites:

How does it grab you that Jesus didn't die of his own volition or through the spirit leaving him, but because he was killed by one of the executioners?"
since Eusebius is still thinking that one out, I'll summarize where we are.

First of all, I believe Jesus died of His own volition. It occurred when He gave up the spirit. It is clear from all the witness accounts He gave up the spirit of His own volition:

Mat_27:50 Now Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, lets out the spirit."

Mar 15:36-37 Now someone, running and soaking a sponge with vinegar, sticking it on a reed, gave Him a drink, saying, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming to take Him down." (37) Now Jesus, letting out a loud sound, expires."

The loud shout shows He still had lots of strength. He could have lasted longer but He gave up His life for you and me.

Luk 23:45-46 at the defaulting of the sun. Now rent is the curtain of the temple in the middle. (46) And shouting with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into Thy hands am I committing My spirit. Now, saying this, He expires."

Joh_19:30 When, then, Jesus took the vinegar, He said, "It is accomplished!And reclining His head, He gives up the spirit."


I will now re-post what you wrote above:

"Since it's pretty clear that your post, Eusebius, was wrong to replace the wine on a stick with the stabbing and the stabbing followed the wine- giving passage, I'll ask another question which was posed in some of those sites:

I fail to see my error. It is quite clear that in Matthew's account Christ is stabbed after being offered vinegar (not wine) and in John's account the stabbing obviously occurs long after He was offered wine since He was long dead by the time the soldier stabbed him.

Here are the two accounts of what occurred:

Mat 27:45-50 Now from the sixth hour darkness came over the entire
land till the ninth hour. (46) Now about the ninth hour Jesus exclaims
with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi! Eloi! Lema sabachthani?that is, "My God!
My God! Why didst Thou forsake Me? (47) Now some of those standing
there, hearing it, said that "He is summoning Elijah." (48) And
immediately one from among them, running and getting a sponge, filling
it with vinegar and sticking it on a reed, gave Him a drink." (49) Yet the
rest said, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming, and saving him. Now
another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out came water and
blood." (50) Now Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, lets out the
spirit."

The time between verse 49 and verse 50 could have been an hour. Hebrew writing is often compressed time-wise. Look at all the accounts in the O.T.

It is interesting that the first time He was stabbed by the non-descript person, out came water and blood. In the second time He was stabbed by the soldier out came blood and water in that order. I don't know if this has to do with the pooling of water after one has died and then blood drips out? That would be interesting to research.

John 19:29-35 Now a vessel lay there distended with vinegar. Sticking a
sponge, then, distended with vinegar, on hyssop, they carry it to His
mouth." (30) When, then, Jesus took the vinegar, He said, "It is
accomplished! And reclining His head, He gives up the spirit." (31) The
Jews, then, since it was the preparation, lest the bodies should be
remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for it was the great day, that
sabbath), ask Pilate that they might be fracturing their legs, and they may
be taken away." (32) The soldiers, then, came and fractured indeed the
legs of the first and of the other who is crucified together with Him." (33)
Yet, coming on to Jesus, as they perceived He had already died, they do
not fracture His legs." (34) But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a
lance head, and straightway out came blood and water." (35) And he
who has seen has testified, and true is his testimony. And he is aware that
he is telling the truth, that you, also, should be believing."

In Matthew's witness to the event, the witness sees a person from the crowd with a lance and stabbing Jesus. It does not say the lance is what killed Jesus. In John's account the witness is that Jesus died after the offer of the vinegar, not due to the person from the crowd stabbing Him with a lance. In both accounts Jesus dies after the offer of vinegar. In John's account the death has already occurred prior to the stabbing by the soldier. Most likely the witness in John's account did not witness the first stabbing.

Eusebius hasn't the best track - record in credibility,

Thanks for the nice stab. It felt good.

but here, since he was able to direct me to relevant stuff which I researched, I am willing to accept that Eusebius' pre- death stab -wound in Matthew has merit. Notwithstanding that a lot of people contest the authenticity of the Bibles in which it appears.

The reason why is logical assessment of all the relevant factors. If it was just in ONE of those Bibles, I would dismiss it as the work of some monkish scribe helping God out out by correcting his omissions.

What is important is that it suggests to me that it was a tradition

So the upshot is that - even where our pal Eusebius is concerned, if he comes up with something supported by evidence, I will admit my error and take the point on board, even if I have to do most of the research for him.

Further up the thread you wrote:

A scribe decided to insert a paraphrase from John 19:34. The reading is ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἔξηλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα (And another one taking a spear stabbed his side, and water and blood came out).

That is merely conjecture and quite possibly not factual. It could be no paraphrase was inserted by a scribe but that the original document he was copying from had the non-descript person stabbing Christ and later Christ died.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Mircea
They did not use "critical methods."
As historians, had they used "critical methods" then they would have relied on (in no particular order):

1] Their personal observation of the event;
2] Witnesses to the event that they interviewed;
3] Documents attesting to the event.
They used none of those things.

Instead, they relied on "someone said that someone said that someone heard something about what someone said who heard something about something so said someone else."

For example, neither of them say, "I went to Jerusalem and reviewed historical documents and saw that on this date, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate."

Not only did they not go, they did no send any researchers to go review whatever possible documentation might have existed, nor did they attempt to locate or interview possible eye-witnesses.

There's also a large body of evidence that the texts were edited and amended by christians to include additional material.

Critically...
Mircea

As to gathering evidence, the apostle Paul wrote: Php 4:22 "Greeting you are all the saints, yet especially those of Caesar's house."

Why is that important? Those of Caesar's house had direct access to the court documents of both Herod and Pilate for the time Christ was brought before them for trial. They also had the account of the soldiers of the resurrection of Christ.

If I were a Christian back then and I had friends in Caesar's house you can best bet I'd ask one of them, "Hey, do you think you could get me in to see the court documents of Christ's trial before Pilate and Herod?"

The four accounts did not have to be as you state: "Instead, they relied on "someone said that someone said that someone heard something about what someone said who heard something about something so said someone else." That is just not true.

Paul wrote: 1Co 15:6 Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the majority are remaining hitherto, yet some were put to repose also."

So they had first hand eyewitnesses to Christ's life, death and resurrection, not hand-me-downs.

It is too bad Rome burned to the ground since we lost all the court documents of Christ's time before Herod and Pilate. But they obviously had access to those records prior to Rome burning since they record the full events from both court events.

[Eusebius]

Concerning the non-descript person stabbing Christ prior to His expiration I found this:



See Gill on Matthew 17:3, though they did not believe he would come, and
appear to Christ; for they were persons of great note for piety and
learning, to whom he appeared, as they pretend, whereas they had no
such opinion of him. The Ethiopic version here adds, and one took a spear
and pierced his side with it, and blood and water flowed out: but this
circumstance is only recorded by the Evangelist John,

John 19:34, though Beza says the same is read here in two ancient copies,

(s) Vid. Juchasin, fol. 79. 1. & 86. 1. & 101. 1. & 118. 2. & 132. 1.
(end of quote)


However, I find the excuse that since it is only recorded by the Evangelist John that it should not be in Matthew, a most egregious error. Why? Why is it improper to suppose Matthew is incorrect since the writing of Christ being stabbed is only to be found in John's gospel? There are plenty of reasons. First of all, it is "only recorded by the Evangelist John that a soldier stabbed Christ." It is only recorded by Matthew's account that Christ was stabbed by a non-descript person.

Here are some instances of certain accounts having details inhering in their accounts only:


For instance, Luke 23:34 is the only account that has "
"34a Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."


John's account only has this in italic:

23 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. 24 "Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did.

Does that mean John's account is wrong because it is only written in his account? No.

Only Luke's account has this:
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said,

"since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for

we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing

wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your

kingdom." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth today, you will

be with me in paradise."

Only John's account has this:
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the

wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there,

and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother,

"Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your

mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.


Only Matthew's account has this:


51b The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the

bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They

came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the

holy city and appeared to many people.


Only John's account has this:
31b Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the

Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken

down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man

who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But

when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did

not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with

a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it

has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the

truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things

happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will

be broken," 37 and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one

they have pierced."


Only Luke records this:
56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they

rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.


Yet we know these things occurred.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

First of all, I believe Jesus died of His own volition. It occurred when He gave up the spirit. It is clear from all the witness accounts He gave up the spirit of His own volition:

Mat_27:50 Now Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, lets out the spirit."

Mar 15:36-37 Now someone, running and soaking a sponge with vinegar, sticking it on a reed, gave Him a drink, saying, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming to take Him down." (37) Now Jesus, letting out a loud sound, expires."

The loud shout shows He still had lots of strength. He could have lasted longer but He gave up His life for you and me.

Luk 23:45-46 at the defaulting of the sun. Now rent is the curtain of the temple in the middle. (46) And shouting with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into Thy hands am I committing My spirit. Now, saying this, He expires."

Joh_19:30 When, then, Jesus took the vinegar, He said, "It is accomplished!And reclining His head, He gives up the spirit."

I will now re-post what you wrote above:
I fail to see my error. It is quite clear that in Matthew's account Christ is stabbed after being offered vinegar (not wine) and in John's account the stabbing obviously occurs long after He was offered wine since He was long dead by the time the soldier stabbed him.

Your error is that the Alexandrian text has the stabbing after the wine but before Jesus expires but you replaced the giving of the wine with the stabbing - you altered what was in the Alexandrian text. It is as plain as day. Also 'vinegar' is simply the sour wine issued to soldiers. There is no mileage in suggesting that someone offered vinegar when they already had wine there. (ot looks as though a translation is going to be needed - as is often the case when there is dickering about the meanings - and order of wording)

here are the two accounts of what occurred:

Mat 27:45-50 Now from the sixth hour darkness came over the entire
land till the ninth hour. (46) Now about the ninth hour Jesus exclaims
with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi! Eloi! Lema sabachthani?that is, "My God!
My God! Why didst Thou forsake Me? (47) Now some of those standing
there, hearing it, said that "He is summoning Elijah." (48) And
immediately one from among them, running and getting a sponge, filling
it with vinegar and sticking it on a reed, gave Him a drink." (49) Yet the
rest said, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming, and saving him. Now
another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out came water and
blood." (50) Now Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, lets out the
spirit."

The time between verse 49 and verse 50 could have been an hour. Hebrew writing is often compressed time-wise. Look at all the accounts in the O.T.

It is interesting that the first time He was stabbed by the non-descript person, out came water and blood. In the second time He was stabbed by the soldier out came blood and water in that order. I don't know if this has to do with the pooling of water after one has died and then blood drips out? That would be interesting to research.

John 19:29-35 Now a vessel lay there distended with vinegar. Sticking a
sponge, then, distended with vinegar, on hyssop, they carry it to His
mouth." (30) When, then, Jesus took the vinegar, He said, "It is
accomplished! And reclining His head, He gives up the spirit." (31) The
Jews, then, since it was the preparation, lest the bodies should be
remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for it was the great day, that
sabbath), ask Pilate that they might be fracturing their legs, and they may
be taken away." (32) The soldiers, then, came and fractured indeed the
legs of the first and of the other who is crucified together with Him." (33)
Yet, coming on to Jesus, as they perceived He had already died, they do
not fracture His legs." (34) But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a
lance head, and straightway out came blood and water." (35) And he
who has seen has testified, and true is his testimony. And he is aware that
he is telling the truth, that you, also, should be believing."

In Matthew's witness to the event, the witness sees a person from the crowd with a lance and stabbing Jesus. It does not say the lance is what killed Jesus. In John's account the witness is that Jesus died after the offer of the vinegar, not due to the person from the crowd stabbing Him with a lance. In both accounts Jesus dies after the offer of vinegar. In John's account the death has already occurred prior to the stabbing by the soldier. Most likely the witness in John's account did not witness the first stabbing.

The question here is whether the two stabs would have done for Jesus, assuming we can believe them. We have, in what I am prepared to credit as an Alexandrian tradition, a spear stab after the wine is given. To anyone looking on (as it looks to me and most other commentators on that disputed passage) that it was the spear stab that caused Jesus' death.

Now you assume that it didn't, You voluntary giving up the spirit works just as well as a voluntary conking out from drugged wine since the spear stab didn't polish him off, so - according to your view - Jesus could well have survived crucifixion. But the we have this totally different stab to make sure Jesus was dead. Well, if the first stab didn't kill him, why would the second one be any more fatal?

Thanks for the nice stab. It felt good.

Did it do any good?

Further up the thread you wrote:"A scribe decided to insert a paraphrase from John 19:34. The reading is ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἔξηλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα (And another one taking a spear stabbed his side, and water and blood came out)."

That is merely conjecture and quite possibly not factual. It could be no paraphrase was inserted by a scribe but that the original document he was copying from had the non-descript person stabbing Christ and later Christ died.

and you wrote in post #65 "Vaticanus and Sinaticus were not amended. What happened is the scribe who copied the Alexandrinus failed to copy over the text of the spearing of Jesus after He was already dead."

You suggest that the scribe copying out the Alexandrian text decided to omit a passage while I suggest that the Alexandrian scribe decided to put one in.

On the face of it they would seem to be equally possible, but discussion may show that addition looks more likely than omission.

P.s. I have been trying to get the Sinai codex in greek to check the wording, but it isn't easy to get - not interlinear or greek text - if anyone can post the passage in Matthew about giving the wine and stabbing (even in the Greek which can be translated) I'd be grateful.

I did however, find some more comments on how amended and altered the Alexandrian Codices are.

The Codex Sinaiticus as it survives is incomplete – originally it would have been about 1,460 pages long – but it includes half of the Old Testament, all the New Testament, and two early Christian texts not found in modern Bibles. It offers the first evidence of the content and the arrangement of the Bible, and includes numerous revisions, additions and corrections made to the text between the 4th and 12th centuries, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence, showing how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation down through the ages.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...e-1734439.html

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

Lastly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with Codex Vaticanus), exhibits clear gnostic influence. In John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten God," thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son Jesus Christ with God Himself by breaking the clear connection between "God" of John 1:1 with "the Son" of John 1:18. We know that God was not begotten; it was the Son who was begotten in the incarnation.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/co...naiticus.html/