What happened when Jesus was crucified?

[Nicki]

It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was put to death coming up to 2000 years ago. So what really happened when he died? His followers claimed that he had risen from the dead and many of them, including 10 of his closest disciples, were so convinced about this they were put to death themselves rather than change their story. Two popular theories explaining this are as follows:

The swoon theory

This theory holds that Jesus didn't really die on the cross but only lost consciousness, and after coming to in the tomb, got out and began appearing to people. There are a number of problems with this -

*Jesus had suffered the trauma of being nailed to a cross for several hours and then a sword being thrust into his side - it's recorded that blood and water flowed out, the water perhaps being fluid from around the heart.

*The Roman and Jewish authorities wanted to make sure Jesus' tomb was secure to avoid any trouble, so a massive rock was rolled in front of the tomb and a guard of 10 or 12 trained soldiers posted.

*Jesus was supposed to have recovered consciousness after about a day and two nights of no food, water or medical attention for his injuries, rolled the boulder from the front of the tomb and fought off the 10 or 12 Roman soldiers, who would have been highly motivated to prevent his escape. He then apparently walked for several kilometres around town and also cooked a fish breakfast for his disciples on the beach.

The theft theory

This theory holds that Jesus really died, as seemed apparent to everyone around, but his followers managed to recover his body from the tomb, hide it somewhere and then start proclaiming that he had risen from the dead.

*The first problem with this is similar to the last listed previously. Even Jesus' closest disciples had struggled to understand that he was not going to be a great earthly leader and save his people from the Romans, and many of his followers were deeply disillusioned by his arrest and trial. His few remaining followers, who were mainly fishermen and other ordinary citizens, had a guard of trained soldiers to fight off before rolling the boulder away and getting into the tomb.

*As mentioned earlier, most of those disciples were eventually put to death for proclaiming Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than recant. Many people have died for different beliefs over the ages but these followers were actually in the position of knowing whether what they'd dedicated their lives to proclaiming was true or false. Would any of them have died for what they knew was nonsense?

The strange thing about these two popular theories is that what happened after the events would have been vastly different in each case. In the swoon theory Jesus is said not to have died at the time but to have lived on for some time after. He must have hidden well for the rest of his life or gone a long way away, because apparently no one ever saw him again. If he had been spotted the story of his resurrection would have been easily refuted, since the disciples recorded that he spent only a short time further on earth in his glorified body before being taken up to heaven.

In the theft theory the disciples had a body to hide and they must have done it well, but if they had later decided against being executed for the beliefs they were promoting they could have retrieved the body to prove that they acknowledged it was all false and to help settle some of the trouble they'd caused starting a new faith. But it never happened.

If you doubt Jesus' resurrection and its implications, like the truth of what he said about himself being the way to God, do you agree with either of these theories or do you have another one? What do you think really happened?

[PaulSacramento]

Both those theories have been shown to be very, very improbable.
Both assume that Roman soldiers didn't know how to do their job and that is just plain silly.
There is no evidence for neither theory either.

The issue is and always will be that with a naturalistic world view, the resurrection is impossible to fathom and accept.

[Nicki]

Oh no, it's crashing and burning! I was hoping to start a lively discussion...

[Kenny]

It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was put to death coming up to 2000 years ago. So what really happened when he died? His followers claimed that he had risen from the dead and many of them, including 10 of his closest disciples, were so convinced about this they were put to death themselves rather than change their story. Two popular theories explaining this are as follows:

The swoon theory

This theory holds that Jesus didn't really die on the cross but only lost consciousness, and after coming to in the tomb, got out and began appearing to people. There are a number of problems with this -

*Jesus had suffered the trauma of being nailed to a cross for several hours and then a sword being thrust into his side - it's recorded that blood and water flowed out, the water perhaps being fluid from around the heart.

*The Roman and Jewish authorities wanted to make sure Jesus' tomb was secure to avoid any trouble, so a massive rock was rolled in front of the tomb and a guard of 10 or 12 trained soldiers posted.

*Jesus was supposed to have recovered consciousness after about a day and two nights of no food, water or medical attention for his injuries, rolled the boulder from the front of the tomb and fought off the 10 or 12 Roman soldiers, who would have been highly motivated to prevent his escape. He then apparently walked for several kilometres around town and also cooked a fish breakfast for his disciples on the beach.

The theft theory

This theory holds that Jesus really died, as seemed apparent to everyone around, but his followers managed to recover his body from the tomb, hide it somewhere and then start proclaiming that he had risen from the dead.

*The first problem with this is similar to the last listed previously. Even Jesus' closest disciples had struggled to understand that he was not going to be a great earthly leader and save his people from the Romans, and many of his followers were deeply disillusioned by his arrest and trial. His few remaining followers, who were mainly fishermen and other ordinary citizens, had a guard of trained soldiers to fight off before rolling the boulder away and getting into the tomb.

*As mentioned earlier, most of those disciples were eventually put to death for proclaiming Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than recant. Many people have died for different beliefs over the ages but these followers were actually in the position of knowing whether what they'd dedicated their lives to proclaiming was true or false. Would any of them have died for what they knew was nonsense?

The strange thing about these two popular theories is that what happened after the events would have been vastly different in each case. In the swoon theory Jesus is said not to have died at the time but to have lived on for some time after. He must have hidden well for the rest of his life or gone a long way away, because apparently no one ever saw him again. If he had been spotted the story of his resurrection would have been easily refuted, since the disciples recorded that he spent only a short time further on earth in his glorified body before being taken up to heaven.

In the theft theory the disciples had a body to hide and they must have done it well, but if they had later decided against being executed for the beliefs they were promoting they could have retrieved the body to prove that they acknowledged it was all false and to help settle some of the trouble they'd caused starting a new faith. But it never happened.

If you doubt Jesus' resurrection and its implications, like the truth of what he said about himself being the way to God, do you agree with either of these theories or do you have another one? What do you think really happened?

I would suspect neither of those theories are true, that Jesus was a religious leader who was executed, buried in an unknown grave, and exaggerated myths of him grew as time went on.

Ken

[Nicki]

It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was put to death coming up to 2000 years ago. So what really happened when he died? His followers claimed that he had risen from the dead and many of them, including 10 of his closest disciples, were so convinced about this they were put to death themselves rather than change their story. Two popular theories explaining this are as follows:

The swoon theory

This theory holds that Jesus didn't really die on the cross but only lost consciousness, and after coming to in the tomb, got out and began appearing to people. There are a number of problems with this -

*Jesus had suffered the trauma of being nailed to a cross for several hours and then a sword being thrust into his side - it's recorded that blood and water flowed out, the water perhaps being fluid from around the heart.

*The Roman and Jewish authorities wanted to make sure Jesus' tomb was secure to avoid any trouble, so a massive rock was rolled in front of the tomb and a guard of 10 or 12 trained soldiers posted.

*Jesus was supposed to have recovered consciousness after about a day and two nights of no food, water or medical attention for his injuries, rolled the boulder from the front of the tomb and fought off the 10 or 12 Roman soldiers, who would have been highly motivated to prevent his escape. He then apparently walked for several kilometres around town and also cooked a fish breakfast for his disciples on the beach.

The theft theory

This theory holds that Jesus really died, as seemed apparent to everyone around, but his followers managed to recover his body from the tomb, hide it somewhere and then start proclaiming that he had risen from the dead.

*The first problem with this is similar to the last listed previously. Even Jesus' closest disciples had struggled to understand that he was not going to be a great earthly leader and save his people from the Romans, and many of his followers were deeply disillusioned by his arrest and trial. His few remaining followers, who were mainly fishermen and other ordinary citizens, had a guard of trained soldiers to fight off before rolling the boulder away and getting into the tomb.

*As mentioned earlier, most of those disciples were eventually put to death for proclaiming Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than recant. Many people have died for different beliefs over the ages but these followers were actually in the position of knowing whether what they'd dedicated their lives to proclaiming was true or false. Would any of them have died for what they knew was nonsense?

The strange thing about these two popular theories is that what happened after the events would have been vastly different in each case. In the swoon theory Jesus is said not to have died at the time but to have lived on for some time after. He must have hidden well for the rest of his life or gone a long way away, because apparently no one ever saw him again. If he had been spotted the story of his resurrection would have been easily refuted, since the disciples recorded that he spent only a short time further on earth in his glorified body before being taken up to heaven.

In the theft theory the disciples had a body to hide and they must have done it well, but if they had later decided against being executed for the beliefs they were promoting they could have retrieved the body to prove that they acknowledged it was all false and to help settle some of the trouble they'd caused starting a new faith. But it never happened.

If you doubt Jesus' resurrection and its implications, like the truth of what he said about himself being the way to God, do you agree with either of these theories or do you have another one? What do you think really happened?

I would suspect neither of those theories are true, that Jesus was a religious leader who was executed, buried in an unknown grave, and exaggerated myths of him grew as time went on.

Ken

Do you think the many people who reported seeing and talking to him after his death were all hallucinating? Or were they all in on a con?

[Kenny]

It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was put to death coming up to 2000 years ago. So what really happened when he died? His followers claimed that he had risen from the dead and many of them, including 10 of his closest disciples, were so convinced about this they were put to death themselves rather than change their story. Two popular theories explaining this are as follows:

The swoon theory

This theory holds that Jesus didn't really die on the cross but only lost consciousness, and after coming to in the tomb, got out and began appearing to people. There are a number of problems with this -

*Jesus had suffered the trauma of being nailed to a cross for several hours and then a sword being thrust into his side - it's recorded that blood and water flowed out, the water perhaps being fluid from around the heart.

*The Roman and Jewish authorities wanted to make sure Jesus' tomb was secure to avoid any trouble, so a massive rock was rolled in front of the tomb and a guard of 10 or 12 trained soldiers posted.

*Jesus was supposed to have recovered consciousness after about a day and two nights of no food, water or medical attention for his injuries, rolled the boulder from the front of the tomb and fought off the 10 or 12 Roman soldiers, who would have been highly motivated to prevent his escape. He then apparently walked for several kilometres around town and also cooked a fish breakfast for his disciples on the beach.

The theft theory

This theory holds that Jesus really died, as seemed apparent to everyone around, but his followers managed to recover his body from the tomb, hide it somewhere and then start proclaiming that he had risen from the dead.

*The first problem with this is similar to the last listed previously. Even Jesus' closest disciples had struggled to understand that he was not going to be a great earthly leader and save his people from the Romans, and many of his followers were deeply disillusioned by his arrest and trial. His few remaining followers, who were mainly fishermen and other ordinary citizens, had a guard of trained soldiers to fight off before rolling the boulder away and getting into the tomb.

*As mentioned earlier, most of those disciples were eventually put to death for proclaiming Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than recant. Many people have died for different beliefs over the ages but these followers were actually in the position of knowing whether what they'd dedicated their lives to proclaiming was true or false. Would any of them have died for what they knew was nonsense?

The strange thing about these two popular theories is that what happened after the events would have been vastly different in each case. In the swoon theory Jesus is said not to have died at the time but to have lived on for some time after. He must have hidden well for the rest of his life or gone a long way away, because apparently no one ever saw him again. If he had been spotted the story of his resurrection would have been easily refuted, since the disciples recorded that he spent only a short time further on earth in his glorified body before being taken up to heaven.

In the theft theory the disciples had a body to hide and they must have done it well, but if they had later decided against being executed for the beliefs they were promoting they could have retrieved the body to prove that they acknowledged it was all false and to help settle some of the trouble they'd caused starting a new faith. But it never happened.

If you doubt Jesus' resurrection and its implications, like the truth of what he said about himself being the way to God, do you agree with either of these theories or do you have another one? What do you think really happened?

I would suspect neither of those theories are true, that Jesus was a religious leader who was executed, buried in an unknown grave, and exaggerated myths of him grew as time went on.

Ken

Do you think the many people who reported seeing and talking to him after his death were all hallucinating? Or were they all in on a con?

I don’t know. What we have are people claiming other people saw him after his death. They say the Romans kept extensive records of historical events; but nothing of any of their crucified victims rising from the dead, and talking to people.

Ken

[Storyteller]

To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

You may not believe Christ did indeed rise from the dead but you have to admit there is some evidence that it may be true. You may not believe that Christ rose again but the shroud is pretty hard to ignore. I know a lot of people have claimed it`s a fake, why won`t the church allow tests if it`s real, why won`t the church validate it`s authenticity, all that stuff but there is at least, the suggestion, that Christ existed (very few people doubt that) so where is His body? Why does the shroud match with so many details?

[Kenny]

To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

Roman records from Jesus time exist even to today. What was Rome during that time is now the most Christian place on Earth. If the home of the Catholic Church (Roman area) had proof of Jesus rising from the dead I doubt they would be reluctant to admit that.

You may not believe Christ did indeed rise from the dead but you have to admit there is some evidence that it may be true.

That’s where we differ; I don’t see the second and third hand claims as credible evidence.

You may not believe that Christ rose again but the shroud is pretty hard to ignore. I know a lot of people have claimed it`s a fake, why won`t the church allow tests if it`s real, why won`t the church validate it`s authenticity,

The fact that the Catholic Church will claim demons exist, and that people performed miracles, (Sainthood) but they back away from the shroud when it comes to validating it, this speaks volumes to me. Though I admit; if the Catholic Church did validate the Shroud, I would be about as likely to believe that claim, as I am to believe their claims about demons, and people preforming miracles. I guess their reluctance is just another nail in the coffin against the claim in my eyes.
I’m sure this sounds absurd to you and a lot of people here, but you’re asking how I see it.

all that stuff but there is at least, the suggestion, that Christ existed (very few people doubt that) so where is His body? Why does the shroud match with so many details?

If the Shroud matched with so many details, I doubt the Catholic Church would back away from it the way they do. As far as the location of Jesus body, if there were an actual record of where Jesus was buried, I bet your question would be answered. But then if such a record did exist, I am sure there are those who would have good reason to keep those records hidden

Ken

[Storyteller]

It doesn`t sound absurd, it`s what you think. I might not agree with it but absurd? No. Just wrong

Seriously though Ken, I`m interested in what you think, and why. So you believe something different to me, it makes for interesting discussion doesn`t it?

[PaulSacramento]

The reality is that people do NOT come back from the dead.
Romans were very, very good at killing people and making sure they were dead.
Jesus' followers ALL though he had died.
They then believed that He was resurrected FLESH and BONE.
They believed this so strongly that they were willing to die by being stoned or crucified or being fed to lions.
I am not just speaking of those that believed by faith because, as we know, there CAN be an element of delusion.
I am speaking about those that SAW him Die, horribly and in a very humiliating way.
There would be no reason, ZERO, to go out and proclaim Jesus the messiah when He died the way he died UNLESS He has actually resurrected in the flesh and they had seen AND felt Him and KNOW 100% that is exactly what happened.

As hard as it is for us to grasp it, the only logical conclusion is that He resurrected for NO other explanation would work within what we know historically happened and what we know of people in 1st century ANE.

[PaulSacramento]

As for the shroud:
As someone that never believed that it was anything other than a fake, after reading the thread we have here and after doing my own research and speaking to people in the business I concluded that the image on the shroud was made via some type of radiation ( the only thing that can account for ALL the qualities of the image) and if it is NOT of Christ ( and it may not be) then it is still the image of a male that radiated in such a way that modern science's only plausible explanation for ALL the characteristics on the shroud ( and it's head piece by the way) is some sort of radioactive "burst".

[IceMobster]

Demons do not exist?

[melanie]

To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

Roman records from Jesus time exist even to today. What was Rome during that time is now the most Christian place on Earth. If the home of the Catholic Church (Roman area) had proof of Jesus rising from the dead I doubt they would be reluctant to admit that.

You may not believe Christ did indeed rise from the dead but you have to admit there is some evidence that it may be true.

That’s where we differ; I don’t see the second and third hand claims as credible evidence.

You may not believe that Christ rose again but the shroud is pretty hard to ignore. I know a lot of people have claimed it`s a fake, why won`t the church allow tests if it`s real, why won`t the church validate it`s authenticity,

The fact that the Catholic Church will claim demons exist, and that people performed miracles, (Sainthood) but they back away from the shroud when it comes to validating it, this speaks volumes to me. Though I admit; if the Catholic Church did validate the Shroud, I would be about as likely to believe that claim, as I am to believe their claims about demons, and people preforming miracles. I guess their reluctance is just another nail in the coffin against the claim in my eyes.
I’m sure this sounds absurd to you and a lot of people here, but you’re asking how I see it.

all that stuff but there is at least, the suggestion, that Christ existed (very few people doubt that) so where is His body? Why does the shroud match with so many details?

If the Shroud matched with so many details, I doubt the Catholic Church would back away from it the way they do. As far as the location of Jesus body, if there were an actual record of where Jesus was buried, I bet your question would be answered. But then if such a record did exist, I am sure there are those who would have good reason to keep those records hidden

Ken

So what do we know?
Jesus lived.
History gets a point
Could the shroud be legitimate?
You have already answered some questions as to why that may or may not be fools worthy.
Valid points either way
What are we left with?
Ancient history.
We know Jesus lived. And He was crucified.
We also know that His teachings turned Judaism on its head.
Full of wisdom, and compassion and love.
We can't deny His teachings were profound
And beautiful
And an ultimate way to live and exist,
Every guru that lived since Christ did nothing but regurgitate those ideals.
Before Christ Religion relied on a works based priciniple.
He teached that selfishness and arrogance was not the ideal.

A man that ate with sinners, with thieves, with prositutes and called them His friends.
In one of His most humbling experiences when slaves were the ones who washed the feet of others he got on his knees and washed the feet of his brethren to show the ultimate message that we show humility to those under all conditions even when we may think we stand above them we are always subjected to a higher purpose.

We can argue the theology
But we can't argue how brilliant He was,
We can't argue the message
Which is why we get stuck on the importance of what was taught based on a factual, historical methodology
But the basic principals don't rely on history, or the shroud but on a reality we all face everyday
Decency, moral righteousness not because we should but because we ought.
Because it's written in our spirit and our DNA
Evolution tells us survival of the fittest
But there is a signitature within us that backs the underdog, a compelling that wants the least to rise victorious,
There is something that exist beyound the mere dog eat dog mentality
We want the little guy to give it to the establishment
Because I think that is how we are wired,
Which goes against everything we should aspire too.

We can deny God all we want
But there is a measure of Jesus in all of us.....

[edwardmurphy]

To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

YES!!!

Are you kidding? If you kill a guy and he comes back from the dead to say that you were wrong to do it but he forgives you that's going to make an impression. If he was really wandering around the Levant magically curing diseases, walking on water, resurrecting dead people, and shrugging off crucifixion it would be reasonable to expect him to gain an immediate, gigantic, fanatical following. I'm as skeptical as they come, but I'd damn sure accept Jesus's claim of divinity after watching him conjure a bakery and a school of fish out of thin air or bring a corpse back to life. Normal people can't do that now and they couldn't do it then either. Anybody who can is completely unique, amazing, and kind of terrifying.

For that matter, if he was really performing magic all over the place the Jewish priests wouldn't have doubted his claim and had him crucified. Someone who really, truly, literally had magical superpowers would have inspired awe and amazement in everyone he saw wherever he went. If I'm understanding things correctly the rabbis basically said "This guy can do actual magic and he says he's the son of our god, but he's obviously full of crap so we'd better have him killed to protect the status quo." That's ridiculous. What they'd have actually done is screamed "HOLY CRAP, GOD'S HERE!" and hit their knees.

Remember, the Christian position (at least as I understand it) is that god is the only god. All of those other gods weren't real. Those Roman and Greek and Egyptian priests were worshiping empty thrones, so they didn't have any real magic. But Jesus was the real deal. The only real deal. As far as I know he was the first legitimate miracle man since the OT and he could prove it.

So yes, they'd have admitted it. They wouldn't have had a choice. Christianity would have spread like wildfire.

You may not believe Christ did indeed rise from the dead but you have to admit there is some evidence that it may be true.

People who have been dead for days don't come back to life. If they did then the miracle wouldn't have been a miracle and Jesus doing it wouldn't have mattered. So no, I personally don't believe that it may be true.

You may not believe that Christ rose again but the shroud is pretty hard to ignore. I know a lot of people have claimed it`s a fake, why won`t the church allow tests if it`s real, why won`t the church validate it`s authenticity, all that stuff but there is at least, the suggestion, that Christ existed (very few people doubt that) so where is His body? Why does the shroud match with so many details?

Wasn't the shroud found to be a forgery from the Late Middle Ages or something? You know, back when every church needed to have a hunk of a saint on display? So if you didn't have Paul's shinbone, John's left thumb, George's testicle, or a tooth from the lion that disemboweled Ringo then you wouldn't get any pilgrims or donations, so you'd be stuck in a dark, crappy little chapel when everyone else was getting a massive Gothic wonder-church?

[Storyteller]

To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

YES!!!

Are you kidding? If you kill a guy and he comes back from the dead to say that you were wrong to do it but he forgives you that's going to make an impression. If he was really wandering around the Levant magically curing diseases, walking on water, resurrecting dead people, and shrugging off crucifixion it would be reasonable to expect him to gain an immediate, gigantic, fanatical following. He kinda did, didn't he? People died, willingly, horrifically, because they saw Him, talked to Him, touched Him.I'm as skeptical as they come, but I'd damn sure accept Jesus's claim of divinity after watching him conjure a bakery and a school of fish out of thin air or bring a corpse back to life. Normal people can't do that now and they couldn't do it then either. Anybody who can is completely unique, amazing, and kind of terrifying.

For that matter, if he was really performing magic all over the place the Jewish priests wouldn't have doubted his claim and had him crucified. Someone who really, truly, literally had magical superpowers would have inspired awe and amazement in everyone he saw wherever he went. If I'm understanding things correctly the rabbis basically said "This guy can do actual magic and he says he's the son of our god, but he's obviously full of crap so we'd better have him killed to protect the status quo." That's ridiculous. What they'd have actually done is screamed "HOLY CRAP, GOD'S HERE!" and hit their knees.

Remember, the Christian position (at least as I understand it) is that god is the only god. All of those other gods weren't real. Those Roman and Greek and Egyptian priests were worshiping empty thrones, so they didn't have any real magic. But Jesus was the real deal. The only real deal. As far as I know he was the first legitimate miracle man since the OT and he could prove it.

So yes, they'd have admitted it. They wouldn't have had a choice. Christianity would have spread like wildfire.It still endures. It changed history.

You may not believe Christ did indeed rise from the dead but you have to admit there is some evidence that it may be true.

People who have been dead for days don't come back to life. If they did then the miracle wouldn't have been a miracle and Jesus doing it wouldn't have mattered. So no, I personally don't believe that it may be true.

You may not believe that Christ rose again but the shroud is pretty hard to ignore. I know a lot of people have claimed it`s a fake, why won`t the church allow tests if it`s real, why won`t the church validate it`s authenticity, all that stuff but there is at least, the suggestion, that Christ existed (very few people doubt that) so where is His body? Why does the shroud match with so many details?

Wasn't the shroud found to be a forgery from the Late Middle Ages or something? Nope. There was a repair made, that was the "fake" You know, back when every church needed to have a hunk of a saint on display? So if you didn't have Paul's shinbone, John's left thumb, George's testicle, or a tooth from the lion that disemboweled Ringo then you wouldn't get any pilgrims or donations, so you'd be stuck in a dark, crappy little chapel when everyone else was getting a massive Gothic wonder-church?