Who killed Jesus Christ?

[Taiji]

I hear he vanished after his NDE on the cross. So I wonder did his disciples kill him, to make him a real martyr, and then dispose of the body somehow? Maybe he simply fell into a lake, while attempting the water-walking trick, and drowned?

Of course if you believe in God you can make something up at this point. But if not then it seems interesting:

What happened to him? How did he suddenly vanish? Who stood to gain?

... Perhaps this should be in the history forum, feel free to move it mods

[Vhaelor]

I hear he vanished after his NDE on the cross. So I wonder did his disciples kill him, to make him a real martyr, and then dispose of the body somehow? Maybe he simply fell into a lake, while attempting the water-walking trick, and drowned?

Of course if you believe in God you can make something up at this point. But if not then it seems interesting:

What happened to him? How did he suddenly vanish? Who stood to gain?

... Perhaps this should be in the history forum, feel free to move it mods

First one has to demonstrate through historical and/or archeological evidence that Jesus Christ even existed in the first place. One has to first establish that. No contemporary historians nor the officials of the Roman Empire in Judea or nearby provinces recorded the events which are covered in the New Testament. Some people argue today that the disciples were writing down what they saw and were thus eye witnesses.

Firstly the disciples were not the authors of the new testament - what is the New Testament today is a bundle of mashed together contradictory stories which were slapped together by the early church several hundred years after the reported events. We have no original transcripts or handwritings of the original authors of the gospels, but what we have is copies of copies. And the earlier copies differ from the reported events in the later copies. The earliest transcripts we have are dated several decades after the reported events which means that the probability that these were eye witness accounts are incredibly slim indeed.

Some people argue also that the evidence of Socrates' existence is the same as for Jesus. That is true - but Socrates did not claim to be the son of a God, which makes the whole argument moot/pointless.

Now that we've established that the historical character Jesus (or maybe he'd be named Jeshua since he was a jew) has no basis in history to exist, what is the probability that he existed? Well, it's very possible that some sort of deluded or charismatic rabbi existed at the time and place and gathered a small following of disciples/fanatics, but there is no way to prove it.

Now that we've established all that, let's tackle your questions:

Well I think we can safely rule out any 'magical' disappearance or ascendance to a higher plane of existance or anything of the sort, since it's never happened and the chances of it ever happening in the future are slim if not non-existant. If he was martyrized it was probably not through his disciples' actions (although an interesting proposal, it's probably not the first time somebody thought of that and maybe even went through with it!) but rather through the actions of the other jews and roman officials who reportedly handled the execution/administration of law and justice at that time.

[Tankbuster]

I hear he vanished after his NDE on the cross. So I wonder did his disciples kill him, to make him a real martyr, and then dispose of the body somehow? Maybe he simply fell into a lake, while attempting the water-walking trick, and drowned?

Of course if you believe in God you can make something up at this point. But if not then it seems interesting:

What happened to him? How did he suddenly vanish? Who stood to gain

What what?

First of all, any theory that depends on Jesus not dying on the cross but simply having an NDE (similar to the Swoon hypothesis) is pretty damn silly. It doesn't explain why the early Christian sect evolved the way it did.
Besides, the Romans had lots of practice at capital punishment and crucifixion particularly. They were very good at it, and the record of people who survive crucifixions is extremely thin.

Second, the problem with your question is that you accept Jesus' body disappearing as historical fact. It's possible that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs as vicitims of crucifixion were often subjected to. But since we have some records that indicate that Jews sometimes got people off the crosses, the idea that he was buried somewhere (though, where?) is not totally unlikely.
I myself don't see much reason to accept the Empty Tomb story (especially not at face value). Paul doesn't mention it at all, even when arguing for the resurrection, and later tellings and retellings of it strike me as ad-hoc explanations. Paul and Luke can't seem to agree on anything about the scenario, many of the early visions of Jesus don't seem very physical in nature, and we get things like Jesus' Ascension to explain where the body of Jesus went if it had actually been physically raised or the invention of guards at the Tomb to account for why it couldn't have been stolen. It all seems quite contrived.

As for what actually happened to the body, we don't have enough evidence to conclude either way.

First one has to demonstrate through historical and/or archeological evidence that Jesus Christ even existed in the first place. One has to first establish that. No contemporary historians nor the officials of the Roman Empire in Judea or nearby provinces recorded the events which are covered in the New Testament.

Actually we have no idea if there were official records on Jesus. Since we don't have any records from Roman officials in Judea, pixies could have been running around and we still wouldn't know.
Ditto for contemporary historians: there simply are no contemporary historians who mentioned Jesus' contemporary preachers like the Egyptian Prophet, Theudas, Hillel and many others, so it's not surprising that we don't have more for Jesus specifically.

When we compare the evidence of Jesus' existence to that of many others (usually also attested by non-contemporary sources) we find that he stacks up just fine.

[Vhaelor]

Actually we have no idea if there were official records on Jesus. Since we don't have any records from Roman officials in Judea, pixies could have been running around and we still wouldn't know.

Ditto for contemporary historians: there simply are no contemporary historians who mentioned Jesus' contemporary preachers like the Egyptian Prophet, Theudas, Hillel and many others, so it's not surprising that we don't have more for Jesus specifically.

When we compare the evidence of Jesus' existence to that of many others (usually also attested by non-contemporary sources) we find that he stacks up just fine.

Okay I agree to an extent but only up until you mention pixies . What's important isn't exactly what the romans did or did not do when they were taking notes in Judea. The problem lies in what christians in later ages decided to assert as fact that the events did occur, from a historical point of view there is no reason to believe that the crucifixtion and the awakening from the dead part ever happened or that the person in question ever existed. (though I'm not saying that with absolute certainty since it's very possible that he did exist). And if the story were true of any of said prophets you mentioned and Jesus included - historians of the day *would* have taken notice since such events of great importance would have not gone unnoticed.

When we compare the evidence of Jesus' existence to that of many others (usually also attested by non-contemporary sources) we find that he stacks up just fine.

Such as? The First century AD is in fact a quite well documented piece of middle eastern and european history compared to previous centuries.

[Macunaíma]

The amount of executions by cruxification made on the Roman times were enormous. They must have disposed of the body to give room for more. It is indeed an interesting thing to wonder about, since Jesus probably died as an anonymous guy surrounded by hundreds of criminals in some cruxification camp.

[Tankbuster]

What's important isn't exactly what the romans did or did not do when they were taking notes in Judea.

And since we don't have their notes anyway, that's probably for the best.

The problem lies in what christians in later ages decided to assert as fact that the events did occur, from a historical point of view there is no reason to believe that the crucifixtion and the awakening from the dead part ever happened or that the person in question ever existed. (though I'm not saying that with absolute certainty since it's very possible that he did exist).

There's a big difference between a crucifixion and someone rising from the grave (which we don't actually have much evidence of the earliest Christians claiming, at least in a literal sense). One is a perfectly natural and ordinary event, the other is a supernatural intervention. They require different standards of proof.

For a miracle I'm actually happy to say that probably no form of proof would be sufficient; I don't believe miracles can be historically verified. But a crucifixion?
The crucifixion is mentioned by Josephus, Tacitus, Paul and all four gospels. That's more than enough for such a banal event.

And if the story were true of any of said prophets you mentioned and Jesus included - historians of the day *would* have taken notice since such events of great importance would have not gone unnoticed.

Actually I'm not even sure about that. Faith healers and alleged miracles were as common then as they are now. Will historians today document the faith healers at Episcopelian Churches? Of course not: for someone who simply hears about them, a genuine miracle is indistinguishable from a run-off-the-mill alleged one.

So why you think historians in Rome or Athens or Alexandria would be sitting around documenting the adventures of Honi the Circle-Drawer as "events of great importance" is a mystery.

Such as? The First century AD is in fact a quite well documented piece of middle eastern and european history compared to previous centuries.

How good it is compared to previous centuries doesn't help you. Unless it's good enough to move from someone not being named in contemporary sources (as far as they exist) to that person not likely existing, pointing out that it could be worse won't help.

Jesus is mentioned in Flavius Josephus twice and in Tacitus once. Considering other preachers are mentioned once or twice in Josephus as well -though none of them appear in Tacitus- the evidence for Jesus is about exactly what we'd expect: roughly the same.
And just in case your next argument is that both those references are forgeries, most scholars disagree.

[Vhaelor]

And since we don't have their notes anyway, that's probably for the best.

Ehm, what? This makes no sense.

There's a big difference between a crucifixion and someone rising from the grave (which we don't actually have much evidence of the earliest Christians claiming, at least in a literal sense). One is a perfectly natural and ordinary event, the other is a supernatural intervention. They require different standards of proof.

Of course, that goes without saying, however neither can actually be verified by any other source than the bible. That's my whole point.

For a miracle I'm actually happy to say that probably no form of proof would be sufficient; I don't believe miracles can be historically verified. But a crucifixion?
The crucifixion is mentioned by Josephus, Tacitus, Paul and all four gospels. That's more than enough for such a banal event.

Again. Third party verification is important when events are being reported. The Bible is the only book that actually describes these events.

Actually I'm not even sure about that. Faith healers and alleged miracles were as common then as they are now. Will historians today document the faith healers at Episcopelian Churches? Of course not: for someone who simply hears about them, a genuine miracle is indistinguishable from a run-off-the-mill alleged one.

So why you think historians in Rome or Athens or Alexandria would be sitting around documenting the adventures of Honi the Circle-Drawer as "events of great importance" is a mystery.

This is a good point, however:
If one wishes to give credence to any historical documents, one book ain't gonna cut it. Maybe you could bring up one historical document we have of one thing occuring like the works of Homer describing the battle of Troy, but to this day scholars debate heavily whether or not Troy was destroyed in a grand battle at all, something i.e Professor Garett Fagan describes quite clearly in his Great Battles of the Ancient World series on Youtube describes. Because very little in terms of both literature or archeology can confirm that the event took place. The same rings true for the events of the new testament.

How good it is compared to previous centuries doesn't help you. Unless it's good enough to move from someone not being named in contemporary sources (as far as they exist) to that person not likely existing, pointing out that it could be worse won't help.

You'll have to clarify this because either my brain's being tired or this makes no sense to me.

Jesus is mentioned in Flavius Josephus twice and in Tacitus once. Considering other preachers are mentioned once or twice in Josephus as well -though none of them appear in Tacitus- the evidence for Jesus is about exactly what we'd expect: roughly the same.
And just in case your next argument is that both those references are forgeries, most scholars disagree.

Just a quick search on wikipedia of all places gives this:

Paul L. Maier, former Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University stated scholars fall into three main camps over its authenticity: 1) It is entirely authentic, 2) It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3) It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's authentic material about Jesus.[54][55]

Referencing two of his books, not sure how many actually disagree since I can't seem to find any figures.

And from what I've heard/researched a bit (haven't gotten neck deep into it) the opposite that one of the passages of Flavius Josephus that mention jesus is considered a forgery even by scholars because of the nature of the latin that it is written is not of contemporary style but rather that of later eras.

p.s
Think we're getting a bit off-topic here

[SigniferOne]

I myself don't see much reason to accept the Empty Tomb story (especially not at face value).

On the contrary, the Empty Tomb is one of the facts known with iron-clad certainty about this. See citations in William Lane Craig's work.



"The Great Resurrection Debate"
Lane Craig vs. John Shelby Spong (ugh)


WLC lists the "4 facts" which are iron clad and accepted by the majority of even atheist scholars (which excludes the Jesus Seminar morons):

1) That he was buried
2) That the tomb was empty
3) That he was seen post-mortem
4) The disciples believed in the resurrection

[Vhaelor]

On the contrary, the Empty Tomb is one of the facts known with iron-clad certainty about this. See citations in William Lane Craig's work.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"The Great Resurrection Debate"
Lane Craig vs. John Shelby Spong (ugh)


WLC lists the "4 facts" which are iron clad and accepted by the majority of even atheist scholars (which excludes the Jesus Seminar morons):

1) That he was buried
2) That the tomb was empty
3) That he was seen post-mortem
4) The disciples believed in the resurrection

Lane Craig (ugh) vs. John Shelby Spong

Accepted by atheist scholars? That's hogwash, good sir. It is not even historically verified that Jesus even truly existed - at best an honest scholar can say "it is likely that he existed". As for the others, a scholar can only accept those after it has been proven that the man even existed. When I was reading basic history in elementary school: nowhere was there a chapter about Jesus of Nazareth, and never did my teachers teach me that he existed - although some wished that they could. Nor have I ever read a chapter in any subsequent historybook that asserts that he existed as a matter of fact.

Also about the whole tomb-thing, it's interesting how the gospels re-tell that story differently:

[SigniferOne]

It is not even historically verified that Jesus even truly existed

Of course -- on dishonest atheist forums, where spitting on facts and rationality is common business, nothing could ever be verified except hedonism and epistemic nihilism.

Educate yourself. Watch the debate I posted.

[Valden]

First one has to demonstrate through historical and/or archeological evidence that Jesus Christ even existed in the first place. One has to first establish that. No contemporary historians nor the officials of the Roman Empire in Judea or nearby provinces recorded the events which are covered in the New Testament. Some people argue today that the disciples were writing down what they saw and were thus eye witnesses.

There is far more historical evidence that Jesus existed than that Socrates existed. The consensus among the large majority of historians is that Jesus Christ did exist, if you are making a claim contrary to this then the burden of proof rests on you, as you are defying the orthodox view. We have a multitude of independent first-hand accounts that oppose your view.

Firstly the disciples were not the authors of the new testament - what is the New Testament today is a bundle of mashed together contradictory stories which were slapped together by the early church several hundred years after the reported events. We have no original transcripts or handwritings of the original authors of the gospels, but what we have is copies of copies. And the earlier copies differ from the reported events in the later copies. The earliest transcripts we have are dated several decades after the reported events which means that the probability that these were eye witness accounts are incredibly slim indeed.

I fail to see how you can draw this conclusion. Yes, there are differences in a lot of minor details and emphasis in the different narratives, that is to be expected of any record. But the fundamental facts to the story and meaning of Jesus' resurrection remain constant throughout the Gospels. It is simply not true that they are contradictory in this sense. If anything this strengthens the Gospels by validating it as an historical narrative.

Some people argue also that the evidence of Socrates' existence is the same as for Jesus. That is true - but Socrates did not claim to be the son of a God, which makes the whole argument moot/pointless.

You've already expressed doubt that Jesus existed, so do you not also doubt the existence of Socrates, and if not, why not? It is a perfectly relevant comparison, because it may show that you are victimising Jesus due to your own agenda whilst ignoring other historical figures you should also question. Socrates may not have claimed to be the Son of God, but he has still had a huge impact on western civilization, just like Jesus.

Now that we've established that the historical character Jesus (or maybe he'd be named Jeshua since he was a jew) has no basis in history to exist, what is the probability that he existed? Well, it's very possible that some sort of deluded or charismatic rabbi existed at the time and place and gathered a small following of disciples/fanatics, but there is no way to prove it.

We haven't established that at all from what you have said, no. If you are going to reach such a radical conclusion you need to present evidence for it, so far all you have done is present a superficial and biased interpretation of the New Testament in general and made a massive inference from it.

Well I think we can safely rule out any 'magical' disappearance or ascendance to a higher plane of existance or anything of the sort, since it's never happened and the chances of it ever happening in the future are slim if not non-existant.

I am interested to know how you know this. Perhaps you consider yourself to be omniscient?

A miracle is defined as an event that cannot be explained by its physical surroundings, it doesn't take much of an intellect to realize that seeking a physical explanation in an instance like this is false reasoning.

[Hakkapeliitta]

There is far more historical evidence that Jesus existed than that Socrates existed. The consensus among the large majority of historians is that Jesus Christ did exist, if you are making a claim contrary to this then the burden of proof rests on you, as you are defying the orthodox view. We have a multitude of independent first-hand accounts that oppose your view.

I agree, Jesus existed. And there you Christians are, worshipping a man as god? Doesn't that make you idolaters? And Heathens? I mean you say a man is God? How is that different from saying: "This Statue is God, I mean King of Gods!"

[Valden]

I agree, Jesus existed. And there you Christians are, worshipping a man as god? Doesn't that make you idolaters? And Heathens? I mean you say a man is God? How is that different from saying: "This Statue is God, I mean King of Gods!"

If he was the Son of God, then of course it does not make us idolaters. The multiple first hand accounts we have of the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, combined with the reliability of their authors, certainly implies that the facts about Jesus are true and he really was the Messiah.

If you are going to make such a ridiculous comparison between Jesus and a statue, then I have nothing more to say to a person who has abandoned their reason.

[Lazarus]

If he was the Son of God, then of course it does not make us idolaters. The multiple first hand accounts we have of the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, combined with the reliability of their authors, certainly implies that the facts about Jesus are true

You should have stopped here and quit while you were ahead.

If there were any facts that implied Jesus was the messiah then there wouldn't be any debate about it.

[SuperTechmarine]

If he was the Son of God, then of course it does not make us idolaters. The multiple first hand accounts we have of the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, combined with the reliability of their authors, certainly implies that the facts about Jesus are true and he really was the Messiah.

If you are going to make such a ridiculous comparison between Jesus and a statue, then I have nothing more to say to a person who has abandoned their reason.

Fact is, God wouldnt be a Physical Being. God becoming a man is a demotion. He wouldnt do it.

[Taiji]

Hmm yes, I suppose it didn't quite work like this:

"Survived crucifiction and death did you? You lucky Bastard! You can go free then." says Mr Pilate demonstrating his strong preference for games of chance over effective justice.

So it seems quite reasonable to consider the option where he simply did not get away with the apparent faked death ruse, and was later (re)executed.

All good points, by the way, thanks Aruthiel.

[xcorps]

I hear he vanished after his NDE on the cross. So I wonder did his disciples kill him, to make him a real martyr, and then dispose of the body somehow? Maybe he simply fell into a lake, while attempting the water-walking trick, and drowned?

Of course if you believe in God you can make something up at this point. But if not then it seems interesting:

What happened to him? How did he suddenly vanish? Who stood to gain?

... Perhaps this should be in the history forum, feel free to move it mods

You killed him, sinner. Now repent and say thanks.

[Taiji]

Hehe, don't take it too seriously. You can't have fun like this (or a religion based on it) without some assuming.

OK firstly, if he's alive after being crucified then he didn't die when he was crucified.

Then secondly, objectively speaking, things do not just disappear.

We do not need any evidence to make common sense hypotheses like these. We just need to assume X is true and then tell stories to help X make sense.

So assuming there was a guy called Jesus who didn't quite die on the cross but then noone knows what happened to him next, we can tell stories that fill the gap and judge the likelyhood of them having a shred of truth.

It's not like I am assuming an almighty god has anything to do with it...

[basics]

" What happened to him? How did he suddenly vanish? Who stood to gain?"

Taiji,

From the beginning God Himself predicted the coming " seed " who would contend with Satan for the souls of men saying that He would come from the loins of the woman Eve who along with her man had just fallen out of favour with God. So in time and from her offspring He did come in the form of Jesus Christ.

Down through the centuries many prophets were raised up by God primarily to continue the promise made in the garden of Eden. Men like Micah, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and never forgetting King David, these and many more all saw and said what was promised to transpire. Against all odds their faith in the promises is the one constant throughout Old Testament Scripture.

Many of them said that He would die and rise again in the body and that is important to understand. Isaiah and David both predicted that and did so some thousand or so years before He did come. What is also important is that the resurrection would be witnessed as a bodily event. In this over five hundred, saw, heard and even touched Him.

Of course the Sanhedrin fearing their own positions posted guards over the tomb and were still recorded as being there when the women arrived to anoint the body, if memory serves me correct. To their surprise the stone was removed and the tomb was empty and they were afraid for their lives inasmuch as they took bribes to say that His disciples somehow had carried Him off, even with them being there.

But here is perhaps to unbelievers, the strangest thing of all. The day of the resurrection was actually the day of firstfruits, that is the day when the Israelite farmers would cut one sheaf of barley or oats and present it to the priest who then waved it before God at the Temple's altar. Fifty days later came Pentecost, the time of the cutting out of all the harvest.

The importance here is that the firstfruit is Jesus and Pentecost the harvesting or bringing in of the ecclesia or body of Christ. The former were no more than types and shadows of the real thing. All the rituals practised by the Israelites were just the same. They all pointed to Christ and the resurrection. So why a bodily one?

In death all men return to the soil. That is the price of sin. But if the promises of God are sure then Jesus Christ had to be raised up bodily else the resurrection would have had no effect and He would have corrupted like anyone else. The prophets foretold that He wouldn't see corruption and so He never did because in body and before over five hundred witnesses He proved that by showing Himself to them.

In John's vision, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that man saw Him in the body even in heaven meaning that when He ascended to sit at God's right hand He was in the same body that He had died in and was resurrected in. And that is exactly how He will be when He returns to judge all things. And, the whole world will see Him and the ungodly will mourn as they realise their mistake when they gave allegience to the false prophet.

Taiji, the one thing that cannot be said about His death and resurrection is that there was any guile about it. All that happened did so in accordance to what God gave all the prophets to say on the matter and it did. The proof of that was on the day of Pentecost when over two thousand people were born again to testify to these things despite the desparate attempts by the Sanhedrin to shut them up.

Another important factor is that by His resurrection He defeated death, the last enemy of God, why? Because having taken death and destroyed it, every soul that ever there was will have to give account to God, every one having to bow the knee and admit Jesus Christ is Lord after all. In other words none shall die as we know death but each shall live according to where their hearts lay when on earth. Some to life with God and others, well you know where.....

[Taiji]

Taiji, the one thing that cannot be said about His death and resurrection is that there was any guile about it.

Is that because you cannot think about it without compromising your faith?

I know how hard these games of assumption can get when they conflict with ones we're already operating under...