Let me start out my blog by saying this. I am not trying to justify illegal downloading. I buy my music from time to time as well, wether at shows or in stores. But let's face it. A lot of us download. Myself included.
This blog is not about whether downloading music is wrong or not. That's a whole different argument that depends on many variables, and it's just a different can of worms that I don't want to open.
I'm not here to argue against anyone. I'm not here to justify. I'm just here to point out what I think is a flaw in the logic of those who oppose downloading.
"DOWNLOADING MUSIC IS THE SAME AS
STEALING CDS OFF OF A SHELF"
I see it all the time in people's sigs. I used to think "yeah, they're right" you know? But I thought some more.
Turns out, I don't fully agree with their logic. Sure, their stance is valid, but that one statement just strikes me as incorrect.
Stealing a CD is different than downloading it. Sure, it's the same when it comes to the basic definition, which is "taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission", but when you think about it, there's more.
Let's use a scenario to illustrate my point. Let's say you're hyped about Between the Buried and Me's newest album, The Great Misdirect. You have three choices. You can either do the right thing and purchase it, or you can steal it by either illegally downloading it or stealing it from the store.
When you buy it from the store, the money goes somewhere (usually most goes to the label) and the band gets one more sale to move them up on the charts. Don't you feel good?
When you download the CD illegally, you're depriving the band of the money and the sale count that they could get if you purchased.
Let's look at the difference between stealing physical copies and downloading data (which opponents of downloading will try to convince you is the same thing).
Let's say you decide to steal the album from the store. You walk in, stick the CD in your pocket, and walk out. You get the music, you get the case, the book, and you get to look at all the little pictures and read the thank you notes at the end of the book. Usually the band thanks the fans for their support (except for you, you stealing swine). Your money won't go to the band, and they won't get another sale to help them out in any way at all.
Now this is where the difference occurs: When you steal the album off of the shelf of the music store, not only are you depriving the band of everything they deserve, but you are also depriving other fans the chance to support the band. The removal of the disc from the shelf prevents others from buying it. When you download a CD illegally, the physical copies remain in the store on the shelf, available for all loyal fans to buy. You're still traitorous swine for denying the artists the rewards of their work, but you aren't preventing anyone else from paying for a CD.
The way I see it, there are a lot of people who download illegally. Those who oppose illegal downloading often state that doing so is no different from stealing a CD right out of the store. I beg to differ.
Nowdays, there are probably more people who will download an album than buy it. I'd be willing to bet that more people will download The Great Misdirect than buy it.
At this point in time, I've completely forgotten what I was about to write. So I'll end this blog (probably finish it later) with a quick summary.
TL;DR: Downloading isn't the same as stealing because when you steal, you prevent others from buying, but when you download, you don't.
I'd like to also add that you should buy CDs when you can. Really. If for nothing else, you can at least tell a band when you see them live that you actually paid for their work.
And if you're still going to download, then you better be going to shows to give bands your ticket money. Also, buy tshirts, bands need all the support they can get.
Pick your top five favorite bands. And pay for everything they do.
So, here it is. The third and final part of my Jesus blog. After this I probably won't be on UG as often anymore. I work all day Monday through Wednesday, and the forums just seem lifeless these days. But I'll still be on from time to time.
Here it is. Historical reasonings.
Historic evidence proves that Jesus traveled eastward after the crucifixion. Since Jesus was sent to only preach to the Lost Tribes of Israel, he had to search and find them. Only two of these tribes actually remained in the area known as modern day Israel. The rest, as I stated, traveled eastward. 1) The Jewish Encyclopedia details a list of places where the Lost Tribes of Israel. Included in this list are locations such as Arabia, Afghanistan, and India. Like I said, he had to go to the tribes in order to preach to them. 2) The Bhavishya Maha Purana, an ancient Hindu text written in Sanskrit, speaks of Jesus explicitly. In one section, it discusses the arrival of Jesus: “The king asked the holy man who he was. The other replied: 'I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.' The king then asked him: 'What is your religion?' The other replied, 'O great king, I come from a foreign country, where there is no longer truth and where evil knows no bounds” and in the following verse, he refers to himself as “Isa Masih”, meaning Jesus the Messiah (Source: Bhavishya Maha Purana). This evidence is obviously referring to Jesus, as there is no other person who would fit the description. Jesus was referred to as the son of God, he was said to have been born of a virgin, was a minister to the “non-believers”, and was, of course, in search of the truth. Even though this could possibly be considered a religious text, there is no way that anyone in India could have described Jesus without him actually coming to visit. 3) Isa, or Isa Masih, is Jesus. It is important to notice the fact that Jesus is not really the original name of Jesus, but rather a Romanization or English translation of the name. The original Hebrew/Aramaic name was Yeshua. The name Isa appears in texts of the East, such as the Hindi text above (which obviously referred to Jesus). It is understandable that Jesus (Yeshua) went under a different name as he traveled eastward as to avoid detection by his enemies. By the time he reached further east, the names he made stuck with him (Source: Where did Jesus Die? By JD Shams). 4) The tomb of Jesus is located in Kashmir. In the Sri Nagar Valley, there is a tomb called Roza Bal which is rumored to hold the body of Jesus. The name reads “Yuz Asaf”, which is Hebrew for “Jesus the Gatherer”, also rumored to mean “Son of Joseph” in the Kashmiri language. Joseph was the husband of Mary. The gatherer aspect comes from his mission to gather the lost tribes. Local tradition holds that Yuz Asaf came from the area of Israel. (Source: Where did Jesus Die? By JD Shams, tombofjesus.com) Now, in these areas, it is not uncommon for there to be carvings of the deceased person’s feet somewhere in the tomb. But what makes this one so peculiar is that there are crescent shaped markings carved into the feet, as if to indicate some sort of injury to the feet. Part of the crucifixion process is hammering one nail through both feet. This notion is matched by the image found in the Shroud of Turin, which one foot was in front of the other. (Source: http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/core/historical_so urces/docs/feet_carvings.html ). There is a 3-D simulation which explains what I’m talking about there. 5) Now, skeptics will say that this doesn’t prove anything other than a man by the name of Yuz Asaf possibly survived crucifixion and was buried in Kashmir, but there is one more factor to consider. Yuz Asaf is Jesus. There is a large temple called Takhat Sulaiman (Throne of Solomon, but it is now called something different, I believe) in Kashmir which proves that Yuz Asaf is Jesus, and that he was there at a time after the crucifixion. An inscription in Persian reads “The mason of this pillar is the suppliant Bihishti Zargar, year fifty and four. Khawaja Rukun, son of Murjan, erected this pillar. At this time, Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood, year fifty and four. He is Jesus, Prophet of the Children of Israel.” (Source: Tarikh-i-Kashmir by Khwaja Hassan Malik). In reference to the “year fifty and four” statement, Professor FidaHassnain explains:
“Note that since Islam did not exist during the reign of Gopadatta (79-109 AD), connecting the year 54 with the Muslim Hijra Era is absurd. During that period, the Laukika Era was exclusively used in Kashmir. As this era started in 3076 BC, the 54th year mentioned in the inscription would come to either 22 BC or 78 AD (since Laukika Year 1 is 3076 BC, [Laukika year] 3054 would be 22 BC, and [Laukika year] 3154 would be 78 AD.) As it was not possible for Jesus Christ to have traveled to Kashmir in 22 BC, I take the year 78 AD to be the correct date of his arrival” (Source: The Search for Historical Jesus by Fida Hassnain).
At this time, Jesus would have been much older and much time since the crucifixion would have passed. Yuz Asaf (Jesus) was in Kashmir at 78 AD, lived a long life, married, had children, died a natural death, and was buried in the Roza Bal tomb at around 120 AD, according to Ahmadi Muslim scholars such as Mirza Tahir Ahmad.
So while the debate rages on about the true story of Jesus, it is hard not to ask why some scientists don’t just open the tomb and prove everything through DNA testing. The problem is that there is far too much religious opposition. Integral parts of the Muslim and Christian faith rest on the fact that Jesus is alive and in heaven. Plus, a local Muslim priest was also buried in that same tomb hundreds of years ago, and locals do not want to have that tomb disturbed. Both sides will do anything to protect the sanctity of that tomb, for whatever reason. Muslim and Christian scholars both have tried to dismiss claims from historians, deviant scholars, scientists, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (a minority sect of Islam which is an offshoot of the Sunni category) about the truth of Jesus.
Uncovering the truth about Jesus would definitely have a big impact on the world. A majority of people who used to be religious would be lost. Without any guidance, many people would lose their morals. Some would become depressed. Others may just not care at all. I used to think that it would have a big effect on the Christmas time economy, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that Christmas isn’t really about Jesus anymore anyway. Sure, there are some good-hearted Christians who still have their virtues, but a good number of Christians that I’ve spoken with seem to agree that Christmas has lost meaning over time.
But we have to keep something in mind when we hear what religious scholars have to say in defense of death on the cross and ascension. They have everything to lose. They’ll do whatever they can to win the argument. Both faiths which accept Jesus believe that he is still alive. However, Christians have the most to lose. Remember, the entire Christian faith is based upon the idea that Jesus died on the cross in order to atone for the sins of mankind. Christians believe that as long as you accept the idea that Jesus died on the cross for your sins; you will be saved from the torment of hell. Now this may sound insensitive, but that has always sounded a bit too easy for me to believe. What motivation do people have to be Jesus-like if it isn’t required to get into heaven? Perhaps it would be better for certain people if they realized that heaven is something you earn, not something that is given to you.
People like to hold on to what they’ve been raised with, no matter what it is. Every day, another child finds out that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny isn’t real. They try and try to defend their ideas, but in the end, neither science nor history nor religion supports it. It’s funny how we can write off a giant prancing rabbit that hides eggs in bushes before we can let go of the idea that people can come back from the dead and rise up to a place which doesn’t even physically exist. To me, the Easter Bunny honestly sounds more probable.
Thanks to all of you who have kept up with these, and an added thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussions. I've had a good time. Peace.
So it's been a while. Yeah, I know. I've been missing from the forums. I used to be a regular in the hugging thread. But it's been weeks since my last post in there.
But I'm still occasionally around. I post a few times every day, and I submit reviews and tabs regularly.
But what's with the decrease in forum-going, you ask?
You see, there isn't any light way to put this, so it's just going to have to come out straight. I used to post in the pit a lot. Mostly in the hugging thread. But now, since I don't post there anymore, I'm hardly on the forums at all.
But why don't I post anymore? Simple. The hugging thread is a spamfest.
I know that I am guilty of spamming the thread as well. I used to be a "regular" poster. But recently, I started thinking about why I first visited that thread in the first place. I didn't go to have a chat. I went because I needed support. And that's what I got. It felt good to have a community to pick you up and dust you off. That's why I started posting in the thread. I wanted to help people. That's why I posted in the hugging thread, it's why I do volunteer work, and it's why I make music. To help.
Unfortunately, certain things are unavoidable. As is one of the rules of the interwebz, every thread will go off topic at some point. It's guaranteed. But there are certain threads in which this should never happen, especially in threads where people come to for advice about (sometimes) serious problems.
But why do these threads go off topic? Because people never leave. I think it started that way. The first group of regulars were there to help people. They may have chatted on the side (I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. But I assume it was so), but they did the job they were there to do.
But as the group grew, new members came and old members left. A lot of the new members didn't really know the ropes, I'm guessing. I came with the mindset to help, and at first, wouldn't post unless it was to help. Eventually I started conversing with others since you're all nice people, but I tried to keep the purpose of the thread in mind.
Then, one by one, the older regulars dropped out. Maybe it's a cycle that repeats. Maybe that explains why I don't post anymore.
The thread became such a spamfest that it was closed. A new one came about, which actually went pretty good for a while. People were conscious of what they were doing. "Don't spam" they said. "We don't want the thread to be closed again".
But the mindset soon wore off. New people were coming in weekly. Half of them didn't even have problems. I can't tell you how many times I saw someone come in saying "hi im new here" and then just somehow becoming a regular.
This led to problems. At first, I was alright with everything. I thought, hey, these guys are just passing time until a problem they can solve comes along. But it soon got worse. Much worse.
I used to be one of those guys who would stay up late in the thread, and wake up to see what I missed. I started noticing that at several points in time, there were users who posted in the thread seeking advice who were simply overlooked and lost in the sea of spam. Sometimes I'd respond to their questions, even though it was late. But seeing this happen upset me. Really, when people spam so much that they miss (or even ignore) the real reason the thread was created, something should be done.
Next came the advent of the icon. Isn't it cute? I used to think so at first.
I never thought that something so innocent looking could become so harmful.
It almost became a free pass to post. If you posessed a brain capable of typing in : , then you were allowed to post. Someone (i don't remember who) even said something to the effect of "there isn't enough hugging going on here" and proceeded to post that evil icon.
I correct my previous statement. It became a free pass to spam. Hell, as long as you're hugging, you can do whatever the fuck you want. Hey, it's the hugging thread, right? Just keep hugging!
No. Take that mindset and shove it up your ass.
Also, i've noticed that people were once conscious of their post count in the thread. I used to be the top poster in v2, for a few short weeks. But then something hit me. Quizzy was in the thread and he said something along the lines of "it just isn't the same anymore". He was referring to the thread. And he was right. He was so right. It was the end of January 2009. I remember that much. I started to rethink things, and I realized that it was quality, not quantity, that should receive merit in the thread.
And quality is what the thread lacks now. One user thanked another poster (I believe it was Captivate) and I for helping him get a girl to go out with him. It felt great. It was rewarding. I used to do that a lot. I would try to give the best response to each problem I could possibly give.
But too many others fell victim to the same formula. Once the hug icon came around, it started sucking the quality out of the thread. Not instantly, but eventually.
People no longer gave advice. People no longer put their heart into it. It became like a set of bad parents. People just did what they could to make the problem go away so they could carry on with their own business. Either that or they played the role of ass-kisser.
*person enters thread, talks of deep problems* *regular* ""
*person enters thread, talks of deep problems* *regular* "oh wow thats bad. im sure things will get better. after the dark night there is a bright day. "
Now, back in the day, I'd read through their problems and formulate a well thought out answer. But by the time I posted it, the person I was responding to had already left, either because they were ignored (which used to happen a lot more than people knew) or because they took the first few replies and left.
But the first few replies sucked (sometimes)! Of course, there were times where people gave some really good advice, and I have to give them credit. But while I was there I noticed an increasing amount of bullshit being posted. Either you'd get the damn hugging icon or some cliched sugar-coated pep talk that was full of nothing. Sure, it sounded sweet, but IT MEANT NOTHING.
My patience was wearing thin. I posted less and less. I think the final straw (one of my last posts in the thread that I can remember) was when I posted in the thread because I had been stood up for a lunch date. When I told the thread, all I got was a shitty little and then the spam continued. Needless to say, I was pretty upset.
The hugging thread has become like fast food. It feels good, but has no value. The pleasure is empty, the love is fleeting.
You're all nice people who I've had a good time with. But I just can't post there anymore. Even when I do have problems I don't post because I'm afraid that my return would spark up a conversation and then spam would continue. And I can't just post and leave, because that looks rude.
Bottom line is, you're great people, but we have chat and the rest of the pit for a reason.
If you don't have any real problems, or you aren't helping someone with their problems, I urge you to stay out of the thread. When something like this thread is abused, where will people go when they have real problems which can't be solved by a few empty words and a quick ?
So, this is a continuation of the paper that I wrote, and so on and so forth.
These are just my scientific reasonings.
I'm probably not going to discuss a whole lot here.
I find it funny that there is such less argument here than on my last blog
It is scientifically possible that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Not only that, but Biblical, medical, and historical evidence seem to support the fact that he did. 1) The process of crucifixion was a slow and painful one. This is why it was the Roman’s preferred method of execution. It was torture. Death came within a matter of several painstaking hours to a few excruciating days. The deciding factors were primarily prior health and the environment at the time. The New Bible Dictionary even states that crucifixion rarely causes death before 36 hours and can sometimes take up to nine days (Source: New Bible Dictionary). 2) Jesus was not on the cross long enough to be killed. Jesus was on the cross for either three or six hours, according to John and Mark respectively (John 19:30, Mark 15:33). This is because Pontius Pilate had the crucifixion pushed back until the day before Sabbath. It was also against Jewish customs to have a man crucified on Sabbath. Consequently, the bodies must be taken off of the crosses the night before. These times mentioned by John and Mark are not long enough at all to kill someone like Jesus through crucifixion. When Jesus was taken off of the cross and thought to be dead, Pontius Pilate could not believe it. His reaction is critical, since Pilate, who ordered the crucifixion of many people, would obviously be the expert on the subject. 3) Another reason why he survived was because Jesus was in relatively good health before he was crucified. Unlike the two criminals that he was crucified alongside, Pontius Pilate did not order the breaking of Christ’s legs. Not being beaten by a club (which the other two had been) can greatly increase your chances of survival while crucified. Dr. Hugo Toll, a medical expert from Sweden, goes into great detail about how Jesus had an advantage over crucifixion due to his superb health and low amount of time spent on the cross. Also, he discusses how Jesus appeared to be dead while he was actually unconscious. When removing the three men from the crosses, the Roman soldiers thought that Jesus was dead; otherwise they would have beaten him like they did the two other men. As stated, Pontius Pilate was appalled that Jesus could have apparently passed away in such a short amount of time. People try to claim that Jesus may have died from exhaustion if nothing else, but Dr. Toll says that’s not likely, considering the other two who were beaten and then crucified were still alive later that night and had to be beaten again by the guards. He provides biblical evidence for his claims as well (Source: Dog Jesus pa Korset? by Hugo Toll). 4) Jesus was still alive when he was taken down from the cross. In the Bible, John gives a firsthand account of the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus with the tip of his lance as a precaution to make sure Jesus was really dead rather than beating him. Upon stabbing Christ, however, there was a sudden flow of blood and water exiting the wound (John 19:34). Since Jesus was unconscious, he obviously did not react to the sharp pain of a lance piercing his side. This led the enemies of Jesus to believe he was dead. However, as John stated, blood flowed freely from his body. When the heart stops beating, blood no longer flows through the body. It sits still. When blood sits still, it begins to coagulate. Had Jesus died, his blood would have begun to coagulate and then would not have flown so freely. Believers may argue that Jesus was not dead long enough for the blood to coagulate to that degree, but if he was really dead, would blood erupt from his body in a “sudden flow”? No. The sudden flow of blood indicates that his heart was still beating. Had his heart stopped beating, the blood would have emerged as a trickle rather than the rush described. 5) The actions of Jesus and his disciples before and after crucifixion also point towards the fact that Jesus was delivered from the cross alive. In the book of John, it is stated that Joseph of Arimathea (a disciple of Jesus who kept his affiliations secret for fear of the opposing Jews) retrieved the body of Jesus from the cross. Later on, Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin (supreme court of Israel made up of 23 judges) who showed sympathy towards Jesus, arrived with copious amounts of a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds (John 19:38-39). Aloes are commonly used to heal the skin, and myrrh has been used for millennia for pain relief. Moreover, such a large amount of ointments would not have been prepared if the disciples did not think that Jesus would survive the crucifixion. Had Jesus died on the cross, all of these ointments would have been useless. According to Mirza Tahir Ahmad, a well known religious scholar, these ointments were not an easy thing to acquire. They would not have been sought and applied to the body of Jesus if he were dead. In order to have such a large amount of these ointments ready at the time of his crucifixion, preparation must have started well before the actual time of crucifixion. In the Bible, it is stated that these ointments were applied to his body while he was inside of the tomb. Ahmad explains that “the body which was taken down must have shown positive signs of life before the application of the ointment; otherwise, [the application of ointments to a dead body] turns out to be an extremely stupid, unwarranted, and futile exercise”. In fact, it is such odd behavior that only one apostle even attempted to explain the act. Saint John suggests that the reason that ointments and balm were placed on Jesus was because it was a Jewish practice to do so for the dead. However, religious scholars agree that John was not of Jewish origin, and this incorrect statement proves it. Ahmad says that “it is known for certain that Jews or the Children of Israel have never applied any ointments whatsoever to the bodies of their dead”. Instead, he explains that the aloe and myrrh was used to save Jesus from his critical condition after crucifixion. (Source: Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction). Also, evidence from the Gospels again show that Jesus, upon exiting the sepulcher, removed his followers’ doubts by showing his wounds and assuring them that he was not a spirit but flesh and bones (Luke 24:39-40, John 20:27). He explained to his followers that he was not some holy spirit, but just a man who is in the process of recovering from his wounds. 6) Near death experiences can be overcome. A study was conducted in where 78 medical cases of near death experiences were examined. In most of these cases, about eighty percent, medical professionals were present at the time of or directly after the event. Forty one percent of the test subjects in the study reported that during their near death experience, they had actually been pronounced dead. But they survived (Source: The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences by Drs. Greyson and Stevenson. Surviving something which is supposed to cause death is much more common than one initially thinks. A friend of mine from high school was pronounced dead by medics after falling in a river and drowning. Miraculously, he somehow started breathing again. Granted, drowning in a river is not as extreme as being crucified. But being poisoned and cremated like in the Bhowal Case from India is. A man was poisoned by his wife and was pronounced dead. He is cremated, but a heavy storm broke out, causing everyone to simply leave the fire burning. The rain put out the fire before it could kill the man. A group of hermits noticed he was alive and rescued him, burning a different body in his place in order to make it look like the cremation was completed. Over the next twelve years the man worked to regain his memory. Upon returning home, the familiar surroundings fully restored it, and he filed a civil suit against his wife. People doubted him, yet he supplied information concerning his marriage which only he would actually know. Thus, his estate (which his wife murdered him to acquire) was returned to him. (Source: The Bhowal Case, compiled by Mitra and Chakravarty). If an ordinary man can survive excruciating circumstances such as being poisoned and burned alive, surely Jesus could survive the crucifixion, especially with all the positive factors working in his favor.
I'd also like to add that in the Bhowal case the piece of evidence he supplied was knowledge of a birthmark on his wife's body which you could not know about unless... well... you know.
AN ADDED NOTE:
I believe that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion. I know that the #1 Christian argument against me will be that "God caused him to die on the cross because it was a part of His plan" or something like that. Don't post things like that here. Leave your religious bias outside, please. If you can't think of anything more intelligent than that to say, then don't say anything.
So, this is a paper that I wrote for English. It's too big to be uploaded all at once, so I'm just going to do it bit by bit.
This first part is the intro and first section which deals with the theological reasons of why I believe what I believe. If you don't believe in religion in the first place, then this part won't mean much to you (the next two will, though).
Here it goes (I didn't bother with undoing the required formatting):
I realize that theological evidence is weak, there's no need to point that out. That's why I presented it first. It's all based on how you interpret it, and chances are, you and I will interpret things differently. Remember, my objective is not to convince you of anything. I am here to tell you why I believe what I believe.
Also, if you want to make an argument or ask a question, take a look through the comments. Maybe someone has already asked the same question. CTRL+F is your best friend.
Part one: Theological Evidence
At this point in time, anywhere between three and four billion Christians and Muslims all over the world are waiting. Waiting for the return of Jesus Christ. While the stories of Muslims and Christians differ slightly, they both believe that Jesus is alive in heaven with God and he will come down in order to save his followers on the Day of Judgment. However, a good number of people accept the fact nowadays (no matter what their religion) that the concept of bodily ascension to heaven is just something that isn’t physically possible. Some people abandon religion, other people follow in blind faith. I think that there is a problem with both of those paths. But some people can begin to wonder about what really happened to him. They wonder whether Jesus died on the cross or not. If he did, then where is the body? If he didn’t, then where did he go? And where did he end up anyway? But I believe that there are answers to these questions. I believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. Rather, he survived the crucifixion and lived on to complete his God-given mission.
Theological evidence suggests that Jesus could not have died on the cross. 1) The night before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to God Almighty in the garden of Gethsemane for salvation from death. This has been documented in the Gospels of Luke, Mark, and Matthew. He has been quoted as begging God to “remove the cup of death upon the cross” (Mark 14:36). Now the same Bible tells us that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Also, In Hebrews 5:7, it is explicitly stated that the prayers of Christ were heard due to his devotion. Jesus also stated to a disciple after praying in the garden that “if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matthew 21:22). Now what doesn’t make sense is that even though Jesus was sent by God, Christians seem to hold the belief that his prayers were not answered. Instead of being saved from the horrible death of crucifixion, they believe that he was put to death for their sins. If Christ was praying to be saved, then he would have been saved. Jesus even told his companions that if they believe, their prayers would be answered. And in the face of death, right down to the last minute, he believed that God would save him. And when it seemed like all hope was lost, he cried out “My Lord! Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:45-46), as if he could not believe it had come to this. Christian scholars try to claim that he was simply quoting the Psalms as a symbolic act in the face of death because he apparently knew he would die. The problem is that this is a purely circumstantial claim which could have been invalidated by the simple changing of a few words. Nobody can read Jesus’ mind and tell us what he was thinking. But it hadn’t reached the point of death yet. His prayers were heard, and he was saved (in effect, he did not die the accursed death upon the cross). 2) Crucifixion is the death of the damned. In the book of Deuteronomy it is stated that those who die of crucifixion are described as “accursed of God” (Deut. 21:23). The punishment of death is reserved only for the worst offenses. Surely Jesus does not deserve to be put to death in the same manner as criminals are. God would not let his messenger (or son, if you will) die on false charges. Also, dying on the cross is seen as accursed of God. Anyone bearing a relation to God would never be seen in such a manner. Therefore he couldn’t have died on the cross. 3) Now, some Christian scholars may claim that “Jesus was meant to die for our sins so he is allowed to die on the cross without being condemned”. However, this cannot be true as God would not contradict himself. Moses had previously begged God to let him bear the weight of his peoples’ sins, however God denied the request, saying he who has sinned will be punished for his sins, and none else (Exodus 32:33). Also, the Bible says that forgiveness doesn’t require atonement, but simple repentance and good deeds (Isaiah 55:7, II Chronicle 7:14, Matthew 6:14). Contradictions don’t really make a convincing argument. 4) By admitting that Jesus died on the cross, Christians are admitting that the opposing Jewish who did not accept Jesus were right about Jesus being accursed and that God went back on His word. The Jewish were looking for a false prophet to crucify in order to fulfill a prophecy foretold in Deuteronomy, one of the five books in the Old Testament. In the first several verses of chapter 13, the Jews are warned of a false prophet who will appear to be miraculous, but in reality will take them further away from the Lord. What this may refer to is that Jesus condemned the overly wealthy Jews and the Roman government for conspiring to keep the poor below them, while the rich claimed that their wealth was a blessing of God. The opposing Jews believed that this false prophet should be put to death because he was false the prophet that the Old Testament foretold. By being put to death by the Jewish (and the Romans who ruled), their prophecy about a false prophet would be fulfilled. This accursed death on the cross would make Jesus a so-called false prophet, and an imposter which God had told the Jewish to crucify. However, since Jesus did not die on the cross, he is not accursed, and he is not an imposter. Saying that he died on the cross supports the Jewish theory that he was a fraud, which he wasn’t. 5) In addition to the previous statement concerning his mission, Jesus was not sent to die on the cross. Jesus was sent in order to preach only to the Children of Israel (Matt 15:24, John 10:16). Many of these tribes from Israel had traveled farther east since the time of Solomon, hence they became “lost”. Staying in the Roman Empire, getting crucified, and dying, and ascending to heaven all seem to interfere with the original orders given to Jesus. God would have ensured that Jesus did not die before completing his mission. 6) Had Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, his prophecy concerning his own authenticity would have been invalidated. He made the claim to those seeking a sign to prove his divinity that they would “receive no sign but that of Jonah’s” (Matthew 12:39-40). The prophet Jonah remained alive in the belly of a whale for a certain number of days and emerged alive; likewise, Jesus would remain alive in the belly of the earth (the tomb) for a certain number of days and emerge alive. Had Jesus died, the prophecy would not have been fulfilled.
EDIT: Oh and btw, I forgot to mention, in the four gospels written by the disciples who supposedly had a first hand account of the crucifixion, not one of them explicitly stated that Jesus was dead when he came down from the cross.
Religion is a sensitive topic which requires caution when discussing. This blog is only my opinion on things. I am not telling you what to believe. If you do not agree with me, that is alright. I encourage you to discuss with me through this blog and through this blog only. So long as everyone handles themselves in a respectable manner, there will be no problems.
However, I can not take the time out to respond to everyone. If I don't have time, forget about your comments, or simply think you're an idiot, I will not respond. Likewise, if you simply post a comment saying "You're wrong" I will not respond.
If you say something along the lines of "You're retarded and you're going to die and burn in Hell for this blasphemy" without presenting a legitimate argument, or if you try to preach to/pray for me then I'll probably just ban you from my profile.
In summary, healthy discussion will be tolerated, flaming will not.
Tune in next week or so for my scientific reasonings.