What Happened To Jesus???

[The_Fisher_King]

Not knowing won't lead to hell.

Salaam,

Sure. But it can still be important.

Wassalaam

 

[FearGod]

Salaam,

Sure. But it can still be important.

Wassalaam

In which way.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

In which way.

Salaam,

Is that a question?

Wassalaam

 

[Skwim]

It has become my understanding that Hell/Hades is actually located on earth (meaning not outside of this planet), possibly below the surface. It might be far-fetched for me to wonder if volcanos are portals into Hell/Hades... What do you think? I know it';s a little off-topic, but I'm just curious....

As I understand the Christian theologies, some agree that hell is below the surface of the earth while others think it's in a supernatural realm apart from earth. To me it doesn't matter which they believe.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't know what the importance of such discussion about how Jesus died.
Some will say he died on the cross and some others will say he didn't die on the cross and both
Christians and Muslims are discussing something that they didn't see and have no knowledge
about, at the end he died whether on the cross or not, so end this as it has no benefit at all.
Call the police and they'll investigate the matter.

Its importance is that Jesus did no die on the Cross, but he naturally and peacefully died in India. He prophesied for his Second Coming, so his Second Coming is not in person but a person, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has come in his character, that is its significance .

Regards

 

[FearGod]

Its importance is that Jesus did no die on the Cross, but he naturally and peacefully died in India. He prophesied for his Second Coming, so his Second Coming is not in person but a person, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has come in his character, that is its significance .

Regards

Does that mean if he died in Palestine then Mirza Ghulam won't come? or if he died on the cross Mirza Ghulam won't come?
I didn't understand what's the importance of knowing where he died and/or whether he died on the cross or not?

 

[FearGod]

Salaam,

Is that a question?

Wassalaam

Yes in which way it's important?

 

[paarsurrey]

Does that mean if he died in Palestine then Mirza Ghulam won't come? or if he died on the cross Mirza Ghulam won't come?
I didn't understand what's the importance of knowing where he died and/or whether he died on the cross or not?

I have mentioned that what has actually happened and that what matters in reality. Please
Regards

 

[FearGod]

I have mentioned that what has actually happened and that what matters in reality. Please
Regards

But i don't believe your story, and you don't believe mine.
You don't believe their story and they don't believe your story
I don't believe their story and they don't believe mine.

You'll say my book say so and the others will say otherwise,
What the benefit then from such discussion?

 

[roger1440]

It has become my understanding that Hell/Hades is actually located on earth (meaning not outside of this planet), possibly below the surface. It might be far-fetched for me to wonder if volcanos are portals into Hell/Hades... What do you think? I know it';s a little off-topic, but I'm just curious....

Volcanos are not deep enough. They barely go beneath the Earth's crust. Also there are to many volcanos across the world for the Devil's minions to guard. There is at least one known portal.

 

[George-ananda]

He was buried in Kashmir.

I have heard that from multiple sources. Now, what do you think happened at the crucifixion and resurrection events?

It seems reasonable to me that he died on the cross, was resurrected in the tomb, visited with the apostles and disciples in Israel after the resurrection and then returned to Kashmir; the area where he spent his lost years (ages 12-30). Just a theory I consider possible and not unreasonable.

 

[oldbadger]

I have heard that from multiple sources. Now, what do you think happened at the crucifixion and resurrection events?

It seems reasonable to me that he died on the cross, was resurrected in the tomb, visited with the apostles and disciples in Israel after the resurrection and then returned to Kashmir; the area where he spent his lost years (ages 12-30). Just a theory I consider possible and not unreasonable.

He may have been spared from execution and taken away.
Or he may have been taken down alive, saved, and taken away.

Pilate did not want to execute Jesus. That is recorded. He had no issues with Jesus.
He obviously did have issues with the Sanhedrin and Priests in general.
However, he probably DID want to execute Jesus Barabus (Jesus Son of the Father).
Could he have whipped Barabus bloody, disfigured his facial features in blood with a thorn crown, and executed him?

Or...... did he order Jesus to be taken down alive, after an 'apparent' spearing?
There is historical evidence of a crucified person being taken down and saved.

I don't think that Jesus died on a cross. The taking away and entombing was a staged event, possibly.

Murdering (Roman soldiers?) in a riot is one action, demonstrating, picketing and embarrassing priests, although serious, probably did not come close to what Barabus did.

I'm only asking, suggesting........

 

[George-ananda]

He may have been spared from execution and taken away.
Or he may have been taken down alive, saved, and taken away.

Pilate did not want to execute Jesus. That is recorded. He had no issues with Jesus.
He obviously did have issues with the Sanhedrin and Priests in general.
However, he probably DID want to execute Jesus Barabus (Jesus Son of the Father).
Could he have whipped Barabus bloody, disfigured his facial features in blood with a thorn crown, and executed him?

Or...... did he order Jesus to be taken down alive, after an 'apparent' spearing?
There is historical evidence of a crucified person being taken down and saved.

I don't think that Jesus died on a cross. The taking away and entombing was a staged event, possibly.

Murdering (Roman soldiers?) in a riot is one action, demonstrating, picketing and embarrassing priests, although serious, probably did not come close to what Barabus did.

I'm only asking, suggesting........

All is possible, I suppose but I think the biggest challenge to the above theories is the importance those closest to Jesus placed on the empty tomb and resurrection (Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc.) It certainly seems like those closest to Jesus's death and burial were the ones in the most shock by the events of the empty tomb and sightings of a living Jesus. Most scholars certainly believe that the earliest followers held to a resurrection story. The resurrection seems like an unexpected as opposed to a staged event to me. I guess I have no problem believing paranormal events do occur, so the resurrection is not that great a stretch for me to believe.

 

[DawudTalut]

I don't know what the importance of such discussion about how Jesus died..................at the end he died whether on the cross or not, so end this as it has no benefit at all......

Let the Jesus die for Islam.
How?
Ever thought the consequences of following two misunderstandings about Hazrat Jesus (a.s.) and results :
a---Jesus (a.s.) - an Israelite Prophet -- when in trouble was taken up versus when the greatest Prophet (s.a.w.) was in troubles he suffered and migrated.
b---Considering Jesus is alive and will come back to revive Islam shows there is no one in Islam to do this duty.

These two erroneous ideas gave instrument in the hands of Christian pastors to show their creed's supremacy. Perhaps you are not aware of it.


In fact history repeated it self, Jesus (a.s.) is in same situation, in which people who were who thought Elijah had gone to heaven and would come back before Messiah.....They asked Jesus about it, he said the coming person is John the Baptist.



==============

[73:16] Verily, We have sent to you a Messenger, who is a witness over you, even as We sent a Messenger to Pharaoh.

In one similarity:
Hazrat Moses (a.s.) had his Messiah (a.s.) after about 1400 years.
Hazrat Muhammad (saw) has his Messiah (a.s.) after 1400 years.

=====

Both, the mother and son -- Jesus and Mary -- are not eating anymore for same reason [ both mentioned together, both has died]

[5:76]The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away.

So Jesus died or not is actually very important consequence-wise.

According to Ahmadiyya-Muslims, based on Quran [ Bible, ancient medical and historical records @ https://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html ], Jesus (a.s.) has died. An ummati, servant of Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) has been sent by Allah the Exalted [i.e. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - The Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as well] for revival of Islam with peaceful means and no use of power.

Peace be on all.

 

[oldbadger]

All is possible, I suppose but I think the biggest challenge to the above theories is the importance those closest to Jesus placed on the empty tomb and resurrection (Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc.) It certainly seems like those closest to Jesus's death and burial were the ones in the most shock by the events of the empty tomb and sightings of a living Jesus. Most scholars certainly believe that the earliest followers held to a resurrection story. The resurrection seems like an unexpected as opposed to a staged event to me. I guess I have no problem believing paranormal events do occur, so the resurrection is not that great a stretch for me to believe.

Hello George Ananda. I used to read your posts a lot, before I went 'walkabout' for a year.
I only look at what little evidence is available, and come to my perceptions based upon (my) balance of probabilities and/or possibilities.

Cephas was not there.
Although Mother Mary was reported to be there as written 50 or 80 years after the event by a doubtful witness, imo. He changed too much of the original reports, he played down the more common 'casting of spirits' etc, and felt it necessary to start actually raising the dead. He changed Jesus's description of self (son of man) into Lord and such. He played down the importance of John the Baptist to nothing. I cannot trust much that John wrote.
Magdalene and Salome were there, as reported 20 (ish) years after the event by a person who may well have heard Magdalene'#s or Salome's accounts.
Buit the tomb was left by the witnesses for one or two nights before they returned and were told that Jesus was 'gone'. No entry in the best report (Mark) mentions resurrection.
When Jesus appeared at Capernaum he was alive, and either well or recovered. If his hands were wounded then that suggests that he may have survived the cross, just as Josephus's friend survived (as reported in Life)
Capernaum would have been on the way North, and travelling towards areas which would be en-route for the Mid and Far East.

That's just off the top of my head. The evidence can be more intense than that, but an audience could find for this proposal in a public debate. Pilate's words. Pilate's attempts to sway the crowd. Pilate's meeting with Joseph. Joseph's p[ersonal handling of the taking down, taking away, entombing in Joseph's own tomb!! The unobserved dissappearance. The very late and questionable accounts of 80 and 110-120 CE (Luke and John) both long after Paul's death, who wrote NONE of it.

I'm sorry..... I'm 'going on..'

Magdalene viewed the event of the execution from 'afar'.

 

[paarsurrey]

What Happened To Jesus???

The Christianity people should be happy. A good tiding for them,their beloved Jesus simply did not die on the Cross.
He spent a natural life and death afterwards. NT is totally wrong the Jesus died on the Cross, absolutely no chance of dying on the Cross. It never happened. Please

Regards

 

[FearGod]

What Happened To Jesus???

The Christianity people should be happy. A good tiding for them,their beloved Jesus simply did not die on the Cross.
He spent a natural life and death afterwards. NT is totally wrong the Jesus died on the Cross, absolutely no chance of dying on the Cross. It never happened. Please

Regards

Lets celebrate.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hello George Ananda. I used to read your posts a lot, before I went 'walkabout' for a year.
I only look at what little evidence is available, and come to my perceptions based upon (my) balance of probabilities and/or possibilities.

Cephas was not there.
Although Mother Mary was reported to be there as written 50 or 80 years after the event by a doubtful witness, imo. He changed too much of the original reports, he played down the more common 'casting of spirits' etc, and felt it necessary to start actually raising the dead. He changed Jesus's description of self (son of man) into Lord and such. He played down the importance of John the Baptist to nothing. I cannot trust much that John wrote.
Magdalene and Salome were there, as reported 20 (ish) years after the event by a person who may well have heard Magdalene'#s or Salome's accounts.
Buit the tomb was left by the witnesses for one or two nights before they returned and were told that Jesus was 'gone'. No entry in the best report (Mark) mentions resurrection.
When Jesus appeared at Capernaum he was alive, and either well or recovered. If his hands were wounded then that suggests that he may have survived the cross, just as Josephus's friend survived (as reported in Life)
Capernaum would have been on the way North, and travelling towards areas which would be en-route for the Mid and Far East.

That's just off the top of my head. The evidence can be more intense than that, but an audience could find for this proposal in a public debate. Pilate's words. Pilate's attempts to sway the crowd. Pilate's meeting with Joseph. Joseph's p[ersonal handling of the taking down, taking away, entombing in Joseph's own tomb!! The unobserved dissappearance. The very late and questionable accounts of 80 and 110-120 CE (Luke and John) both long after Paul's death, who wrote NONE of it.

I'm sorry..... I'm 'going on..'

Magdalene viewed the event of the execution from 'afar'.

Very great, an excellent post. Wish you add more all the intense evidence.
The Christianity people should be jubilant on your evidences as it save the life of their beloved Jesus. Please
Regards

 

[Sister Cyber]

They ate him?

According to scripture, Jesus commanded them to. Catholics and Christians today perform a ritual ceremony (some every month) called "communion," "sacrament" or "eucharist" of eating wafers and drinking grape-juice (or wine) based on the disciples obedience to Jesus' command to his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

He died.

Yes, he did. But not on the cross. Keep reading; I'll explain.

Uh...verses please.

Take a look at the Roman crucifixion scene. The Romans killed jesus, not the jews. Cruel and ruthless imperialists crucified anyone who rebelled against their rule. Crucifixion was meant to be death by asphyxiation. Christianity grew out of judaism, but was developed in the Roman world and implemented as the state religion, so bear in mind that christians and jews were both being wiped out by the Romans. The canonical gospels offer stories of what the first eyewitnesses actually saw, and they do all agree that the man called jesus hung on a cross and female disciples were there; Mary Magdalene is named constantly in each (Mark 15:37-41, Matthew 27:50-56, Luke 23:46-49, John 19:25-30).

First and foremost, it is very important that you understand that he was not on the cross long enough to die ~ only three hours, an insignificant fraction of the length of time that death by crucifixion took. Death by Roman crucifixion was meant to be a painful and prolonged form of state-sanctioned execution that was reserved for thieves and rebels. Im those days it took several days for criminals to die on the cross. They suffered the pangs of hunger and thirst and in most cases their legs were broken. They died a lingering death extending over several days. Jesus was very-much alive when Joseph of Arimathea put him in the tomb, and the man called jesus was not dead when the stone was rolled in front of the tomb. I'll tell you why.

First I just want to point out something that a great many are not aware of. This is the crucifixion scene typically depicted to the masses:

However, the scene you would have been viewing in those times would have more accurately looked more like this:

Hundreds of crosses and those in various stages of death by crucifixion lined the road entrance to the city, serving as a visual warning to those coming into the city of the penalty for not abiding by the authority of Roman rule at that time.

Remember, two other criminals hung with him on that same day and they were both very alive when they were taken down from their respective crosses. So what makes you think that a Master healer of the Human body and reknown performer of many great and spectacular miracles could not bear in his mind and body far beyond what those two ordinary criminals did? Also important to note is that the Roman soldiers only considered breaking his legs at the end of the day, but they didn't break them. They broke the legs of the other two criminals who were hung with him on the same day, didn't they? Do you know why? Because they were alive TOO! Again, I point out that death by crucifixion was A PROLONGED PROCESS, and it being the eve of the sabbath, their legs were broken as the Roman soldiers' cruel means to ensure that they would not be able to escape from where their bodies were buried, and thus would slowly starve or bleed to death while abandoned in their graves.

Jesus' legs were not broken because the Roman soldiers THOUGHT he was dead because he appeared to them to be dead due to his superconscious state, but they, too, missed the mark in their assumption. All the Roman soldier did to him was stab him in the side with his dagger. Big deal. The text says when he was stabbed, blood and water (they apparently did not know the scientific term is "plasma," which is a clear fluid in our blood) came out.

I thought it would make sense to bring to your attention that generally speaking, there are a whole bunch of people (and you may even know one or two or perhaps be one yourself) who are walking around today with scars from stab wounds that were inflicted on them in their past, even in their sides. So it is very, verily reasonable to say that it was not a stab that killed him at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep ... they ate him. Good talk. Maybe you should start a fourth thread about it.