Ancient texts state that Jesus of Nazareth, the center of Christian faith, did not die on the cross. The story is that he met with his disciples in Jerusalem and then traveled to other parts of the world, notably India. However, if Jesus survived crucifixion, the foundation of Christianity is missing and the hope of millions taken away.
The main refutation of this theory is the Christian scriptures, the Bible. Of course, it's to be assumed that this book of history and doctrine of the Christian religion should follow the 'death on the cross' story line. However, there are many reasons why the scriptures carry more weight than other ancient documents.
The Old Testament is supported by archaeology. When the Bible tells of an ancient civilization, monuments or other enduring evidence supports its existence. The New Testament, made up of four Gospels and writings of the apostles, has the distinction of being based on the earliest known documents, dating from around 100 AD. The life of Plato, in contrast, is revealed in writings 500 years after his death.
The four gospels of the New Testament serve as 'eyewitness' accounts, consistent enough to be considered evidence in a secular court. Matthew and John, Jews and apostles, wrote shared experiences during Jesus's ministry, while Luke, a Greek, and Mark, a Jew too young to be an original disciple, wrote of what they 'knew to be true'.
For believers who know the tenets of the faith, no sacrificial death on the cross or resurrection would render the plan of salvation null and void. Paul addresses this in his writings. He stresses that, by dying for the sins of mankind and rising to new life, Jesus made a way for sinful man to enter into relationship with a holy God. Only a blood sacrifice was acceptable as atonement for sin under the Jewish law; no deception would have sufficed.
God does not reward earthly life that is not redeemed by the blood of his son. A 'good' life is not sufficient to atone for sin that separates man from God. Only those who accept that they are sinners, deserving to die, and that Jesus's death on the cross paid their penalty can become the children of God. The Lamb paid the price for all, and his resurrection made him the firstborn of all who have new life in Christ.
This man said he was the Son of God and that whoever had seen him had seen the Father. Hundreds of years of prophecy foretold the coming of such a one to restore the covenant God made with Abraham. Prophet after prophet revealed truths that could only have come from God. There are no prophecies about a ministry for the Son of God on other continents and shared with other teachers.
The sufferings of anyone nailed - not bound - to a cross are horrific, but mere suffering does not qualify anyone to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It is the resurrection that brings this assurance and the hope of eternal life to anyone who believes, accepts, submits, and follows.
The main refutation of this theory is the Christian scriptures, the Bible. Of course, it's to be assumed that this book of history and doctrine of the Christian religion should follow the 'death on the cross' story line. However, there are many reasons why the scriptures carry more weight than other ancient documents.
The Old Testament is supported by archaeology. When the Bible tells of an ancient civilization, monuments or other enduring evidence supports its existence. The New Testament, made up of four Gospels and writings of the apostles, has the distinction of being based on the earliest known documents, dating from around 100 AD. The life of Plato, in contrast, is revealed in writings 500 years after his death.
The four gospels of the New Testament serve as 'eyewitness' accounts, consistent enough to be considered evidence in a secular court. Matthew and John, Jews and apostles, wrote shared experiences during Jesus's ministry, while Luke, a Greek, and Mark, a Jew too young to be an original disciple, wrote of what they 'knew to be true'.
For believers who know the tenets of the faith, no sacrificial death on the cross or resurrection would render the plan of salvation null and void. Paul addresses this in his writings. He stresses that, by dying for the sins of mankind and rising to new life, Jesus made a way for sinful man to enter into relationship with a holy God. Only a blood sacrifice was acceptable as atonement for sin under the Jewish law; no deception would have sufficed.
God does not reward earthly life that is not redeemed by the blood of his son. A 'good' life is not sufficient to atone for sin that separates man from God. Only those who accept that they are sinners, deserving to die, and that Jesus's death on the cross paid their penalty can become the children of God. The Lamb paid the price for all, and his resurrection made him the firstborn of all who have new life in Christ.
This man said he was the Son of God and that whoever had seen him had seen the Father. Hundreds of years of prophecy foretold the coming of such a one to restore the covenant God made with Abraham. Prophet after prophet revealed truths that could only have come from God. There are no prophecies about a ministry for the Son of God on other continents and shared with other teachers.
The sufferings of anyone nailed - not bound - to a cross are horrific, but mere suffering does not qualify anyone to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It is the resurrection that brings this assurance and the hope of eternal life to anyone who believes, accepts, submits, and follows.
About the Author:
Reviewing the published posts will give you a better idea about how Jesus survived crucifixion. To know more, you can reach our website right away by clicking here http://www.truthaboutjesus.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment