When did Jesus actually die?

[PoloPrincess]

Can someone point me in the right direction?
We know that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Then what happened? When and how did he finally die?

Dione

You will have to read the book for individual specifics I'm afraid. It's the Remsburg List

John E Remsburg. The Christ. (1909)

That list has been further augmented in recent times with nearly 70 additional known authors of the period who make no mention of Jesus.

It's highly disputed but I find the Shroud of Turin interesting. The image on the cloth and the blood stains which closely match the crucifixion cannot explained. Along with the finding of pollen which is exclusive to the Jerusalem area, and the fibre testing in 2013 dating it between 300BC - 400AC.

Obviously this is naturally questioned, many people refuse to believe and that it must be fake.
It may well be, however it is strange.

Namechangerbob

That material testing has been formally discredited and rejected by everyone including the Bishop of Turin.

It was however radiocarbon dated three times to between 1200-1300AD, which is around the time it was first recorded as being 'discovered' and exhibited.

Hell of a coincidence that.

I believe the most popular theory is that it was an early photograph made using silver bromide transfer techniques.

Good forgery though. It must have been incredibly convincing to someone in medieval times if they had never seen anything like that before.

Yeah I know, but it is viewed as being compromised as it is thought they tested fibres from clothes which nuns repaired it with after a fire.

There is still no explanation of anything else. Despite an Italian scientist trying for 5 years to replicate the image, and failing.

I thought I'd look up the names on your list. I only looked up the first 2. Interesting stuff, but neither would have been around the region when Jesus was alive. I'm not sure that they were alive when Jesus was alive.

Dione

I'm mildly flattered at the amount of attention you are giving to my posts, but your not really adding to this discussion are you? In fact I've just quickly re read the thread and I can't find a single post you have made where you have introduced anything constructive or even any new information.

Now if you want to take issue with the Remsburg list then fine, there are some obvious criticisms such as not all of the authors were in fields that would have been likely to mention Jesus (poetry etc). But it's a well known, well studied and pretty old list and one thing it's never been criticised for is for the authors geographical relevance or an inability to comment on Jesus if they had heard of him.

What are your thoughts on the argument from silence? Why not break your duck on this thread and offer some actual information?

They heard the stories, didn't believe them and given that such claims at the time we're common, didn't think them worthy of note.

If they had heard the stories and believed them, they would have been (according to your argument upthread) incentivised to become Christians. And you would no longer consider them unbiased sources.

Their writings may even have been included in the bible.

I think I'd rather have liked Jeses in the flesh - a hippy before the hippies. I do love the parable of the prodigal son - I often say do things with a glad heart or don't bother.

He had his principles, called out hypocrisy (Pharisees) hung out with people that society didn't like, forgiveness is important for your own good, material stuff doesn't make you happy it's helping others that gives contentment.

It's the stuff done in his name where it gets more tricky.

He dies good Friday and rises Easter Sunday in the church, if that's what you're asking.

I think historically he existed btw. - lots of activist groups against the Romans, although don't know what latest opinion is on this.

Dione

Such claims at the time were common

Were they? Its a common trope to claim that but it's not actually true.

During that entire era I count maybe three claimants to being the 'messiah', spread across about 150 years. (Jesus being one of them) You have a funny definition of 'common'.

Only one of them apparently walked on water, fed 5000 people miraculously (lots of witnesses there), turned water into wine (a good man to have at a party), healed the sick, cured leprosy and rose from the dead.

All activities that you'd think might draw some attention?

Juvenal was Italian, Lucanus was Spanish. These men were well travelled for the time. As were stories of local holy men who performed miracles and had died years before they arrived wherever they were.

Even 2000 years later, an Internet poster who didn't even study this area can come up with 2 other Messiah's leads me to think it wasn't that uncommon and as per a PP's list upthread, these claims weren't exactly new. Also, however the men in your list earned a crust, it wasn't writing about dead men from back waters who claimed to be magic. But neither of them would meet your criteria of being contemporary witnesses anyway. They were born too late.

If all or some of these writers had wrote about Jesus what proof would that have brought anyway?
You'd probably just say that anyone could have said they were the Son of God. People are always going to be skeptical, not believe and question. Jesus was seen as a criminal by many, branded a liar and a sorcerer. He was sentenced to death, with a lot of people turning against him, despite all the miracles he had preformed. I guess this would get people questioning his identity and true powers.
However, some people did write about him out with the bible, but again some of these are seen as forgery and He is only mentioned when relevant to what they are writing about. Tacitus and Pliny didn't like Christians, yet wrote about Jesus.

Jesus didn't come for 'attention' He mainly helped the poor, how can we be sure people could read and write? In order to tell/share their stories. People who continued to preach about Jesus, done so at the risk of their lives.

It's quite common for Christians to quote the 'liar, lunatic or lord' line without acknowledging the forth possibility of it being 'legend.' We've no logical reason to believe it's true. If I am expected to believe it on here say I could end up believing anything.

Bob - Tacitus and Pliny weren't born until after the Jesus character was supposed to have died. They report on Christians existing, but can't (and don't) claim that Jesus existed.

From Tacitus we learn that Jesus or Christus as he wrote, was executed while Pontius Pilate was Roman prefect in charge of Judaea and Tiberius was emperor - reports which fit in with the timeframe of the gospels. Some of his work has also been lost covering the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been if he had recorded it.

Namechangerbob

Yes its very telling that Tacitus uses 'Christus' as his name, not Jesus. Christus (the Christ) was what the early Christians referred to him as.

He was writing what he had been told, not what he actually knew. It's second or third hand evidence.

I think it's unlikely Tacitus consulted with Christians for information, especially because of the way in which he wrote about them. For him to describe Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate, he would have required to be fairly intimate knowledge of Christianity, considering Pilate is absent in the earliest Christian creed and Christian preaching to a Roman audience. Surely he wouldn't have obtained this information from sources he despised - but maybe he did, if so what would be his purpose?

Namechangerbob

Erm ok. Have you read what he wrote?

It's a couple of vague paragraphs that are only mentioned at all to give some context to who a weird group of people were called 'Christians' that he mentioned as part of a different discussion.

He is passing on what he has been told about them by others.

Not a great source of evidence is it?

I'm an atheist and certainly not a bible scholar or anything like that.

I think based on my limited knowledge that Jesus probably did exist. The argument someone made above is convincing to me; that if the early Christians were going to invent a messiah, they probably would have invented a 'better' one - one who didn't get crucified and die, for example. Also, most cults seem to form around a charismatic personality. If the early Christian cult wasn't led by Jesus, then who was it, and why have they been forgotten?

To answer the op, from my atheist point of view : jesus probably died on the cross, or perhaps he was rescued by his followers and didn't die for many years.

I'm not saying it's a great source of evidence - he didn't like Christians I'm sure he could have written that without the part about Jesus. As I previously said who ever he got the information from must have know a great deal about Christianity, I doubt he had any Christian friends. I also said before that Jesus was only ever mentioned when relevant to want they wanted to write about.

I don't think this is proof of Jesus. Anyone could have claimed to be Son of God, and anyone could then have written and preached about that. Of course I believe in Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection but your going to struggle to get hardcore proof, even if there was some it would be questioned and people would still be skeptical. And I totally understand and see why.

Even though it's important to remember that there's no actual evidence I think those saying there was a guy it was based on are probably right. It's how things mostly work isn't it.

Not the miracles of course. If the dead had really been walking around the town when he died ALL the historians would have mentioned it.

Also because everyone is so used to the story now it seems fine, but it's not the greatest story ever told is it. He preaches a bit. Causes a riot or two, smashes up some stalls in a temple/market and eventually gets arrested, tried and executed.

Okay it worked out and now he is a household name (or a name possibly similar to his name is a household name), but surely 'preached until he was 92, converting tens of thousands and then crucified' would have been a better career/story. Especially if that meant half a century of his thoughts in writing left behind. I bet all Christians would prefer that.

What is there doesn't all paint him in a good light either. I mean sending the disciples to fetch a donkey so it would look like he was fulfilling the prophecy. (Matthew 21).

I wonder if they all did that? Maybe there were donkey traders on all major routes into Jerusalem taking advantage of the need. (with a sideline in gourds and sandals perhaps)

Yeah to clarify earlier statement. I think there was some charismatic personality that captured a mood but performed miracles. No.

He died at 3pm on Good Friday and that is why Mass is at the same time in the Catholic Church and goes on forever and ever.....