Talk:Surviving crucifixion

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Better

Better. Even if it is as scholarly as Loose Change, it should have had its own article. MarcusCicero 07:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

So, we exist to debunk crackpots. If this is a crackpot theory, then we write an article on it. If the theory that Jesus did die on the cross is a crackpot theory, then we write an article on it here. FIGHT! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Richard Carrier is a qualified historian and author. He may be right or wrong. He isn’t crackpot. I agree we should investigate this scientifically. I’m a bit curious how the investigation will turn out. I’m inclined to agree, it’s possible but unlikely.Barbara Shack 08:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Well then if thats the case it should be presented like its a very well respected and acknowledged theory. Its not. Its impossible because he did die on the cross, he was pierced with a spear. MarcusCicero 08:04, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Quite how one qualifies to be an author is debatable, and (although the comparison verges very close to Godwin's Law), Nick Griffin is highly qualified in law and history, but I wouldn't exactly trust his views. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

This is a film produced by the British BBC suggesting that Jesus may have survived Crucifixion. The BBC may be right or wrong but they are not crackpots either.Barbara Shack 08:57, 25 March 2008 (EDT) Did Jesus Die in the Cross?

Again, these are all arguments from authority. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Any guy with a word processor and a bit of webspace can be an author. With a bit of money and a vanity publisher, he can even be a published author. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:19, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

With modern "print on demand" publishers, it doesn't even take much money. You no longer have to pay for a print run, although the per-copy costs are higher. human 15:27, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

The BBC Has a reputation as an authority in many fields. When there are scholarly programmes like the one in the link the BBC take care to choose experts for the programme.Barbara Shack 09:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Could anyone discussing the issue here please read the article in question. It doesn't say what everyone assumes what it says. Genghis ^Marauding 15:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a 1 chance in 1 that this article would have been considerably better if he hadn't insisted on cluttering it up with a bunch of numbers pulled out of thin air. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Gnostic accounts

I'm still a bit confused about these Gnostic accounts mentioned at the end - the referenced PBS article doesn't mention anything of the sort, so which sources and which Gnostics are we talking about? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:38, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I was adding to the topic "surviving crucifixion", not referring to the PBS article. Please revert my addition if the subject matter of this article is supposed to be confined to the PBS article. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 15:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just that the PBS article doesn't mention anything about the issue at all that has me a bit confused. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:45, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess the reference is to this part: "What did gnostics believe happened at the time of the crucifixion? "Different gnostics believed different things about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But some were people, whom we know as docetists, [who] believed that the death and suffering of Jesus were things that only appeared to happen, or if they happened, didn't really happen to the core of Jesus' spiritual reality. And so they abandoned the insistence upon those two poles of what were coming to be the heart of orthodox belief, the death and resurrection of Jesus."--Bob^{bing up} 15:55, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

In that case, there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here, since the Docetists believed that Jesus didn't have a physical body at all, only as an illusion. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:00, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Ak, I repeat, I was not referencing the PBS article, only the topic "surviving crucifixion". Whence your confusion? Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 16:06, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm by no means a Gnostics expert, and I've never heard of the Docetists before, but if they believed he didn't have a physical body, presumably they didn't believe he could die?--Bob^{bing up} 16:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Logically speaking, I suppose you could say that, but "not dying because one doesn't have a physical body" is perhaps a bit too far from the average meaning of "surviving a crucifixion." It's not even much of a crucifixion, is it? ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:35, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I always try to be logical Akj. :-) But doesn't it answer your objection to the inclusion of the reference?--Bob^{bing up} 17:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm not so much objecting as I'm asking which gnosticists are referred to - there were different groups with very different beliefs, after all. Although if the reference is to the Donatists Docetists, I think it is questionable whether a guy with no physical existence can meaningfully be said to survive a crucifixion, or even be crucified in the first place. ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:36, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

"Crucifiction"

...oh now I get it...PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 08:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Would you like to take a look at the "locked to prevent procreation" template next ^moral 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Father Crossian"

“”Father J. Crossian[citation needed] suggests that one plausible explanation rests on the different burial rites and rights of the Jewish community. By Jewish law (which was upheld by the Romans when not in conflict with Roman law,) the day ends at sundown. It would have been critical for Jesus to be buried before sundown. Were this the case, he would not have been on the cross as long as he would otherwise have been, and it might be possible to be in something resembling a coma until rested and healed.

Besides the fact that I can find literally nothing on a "Father Crossian," wp:Crucifixion#Ancient Rome says Romans purposefully forbid burial for Jews. I'm gonna remove this section soon unless I hear a substantive argument for its inclusion. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bible over 1500 years that says that Jesus was not crucified

• Bible over 1500 years that says that Jesus was not crucified Does anyone know about this blog entry? Is it reliable?
• 1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Was Never Crucified This looks better than a blog but I've no idea how reliable it is either. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My rule is: if A. it's a blog B. it agrees with me and C. about something other than another blog: then it's straight up not credible for whatever question I'm trying to answer. Confirmation bias is too easy. Ikanreed (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to get anything hard and fast on this. WP has this. The Turkish authorities appear to be sitting on it pretty tightly. The "bible" also has the Gospel of Barnabas which is far from canon, a long, long way from canon. I would surmise that that the Jesus wasn't crucified bit comes from Barnabas rather than the rest. I'm pretty certain we shouldn't be using this as a source under the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" rule. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See also this. As far as I can gather the only source for "Jesus not crucified" is Latin Times. No other source seems to have it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that one ancient text which says that Jesus was not crucified is at least as reliable as one that says he was crucified and then came back from the dead.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no. You're missing the point. We're arguing about the validity of assertions of what the document said, not the statements contained within the document itself. We're concerned if little Susy said it was raining, not if it was raining. Ikanreed (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain that again?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is "did an actual historical version of the bible actually contain a version where jesus wasn't crucified?" not "Is it valid to suppose Jesus wasn't crucified". Ikanreed (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Qur'an puts Jesus as not being crucified, and Muslims believe that the Christian/Jewish scripture have been corrupted over time. Acknowledging this, it's reasonable for Turks to think that the Bible looked very different 1500 years ago. Furthermore we have their claim of him rising into the heavens, which in fact fits the Qur'anic account. -- Forerunner (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A Bible found in a Muslim country appears to confirm the Muslim view of Jesus and the Muslim government in question refuses to allow independent investgation. Unless there is independent investigation we can't say more than that there is a claim Judas was crucified instead of Jesus dating at least to the late 20th century. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this to the article on Judas Iscariot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)