Malachi151

I'm not sure if goldenroad is still here, but the first question of course is: "Did Jesus live?"

We have tons of stories about people and heroes who did wonderful things, performed miracles, died tragic or heroic deaths, etc., from the ancient times. Many of these stories are just that stories, and none of the events in them ever really took place.

You first have to consider this possibility for the story of Jesus, and you second have to look at the story of his execution, which is written, in every version of it, almost completely from scriptures. You can take the Old Testament and string together series of quotes from the OT and basically fully reconstruct the crucifixion scene of Jesus.

If this really happened, and there were really any witnesses to it who passed on the story, then why is the story completely reconstructed from other writings?

Why do Paul and all of the other early Christian writers before the Gospels have no details about "his" death, and speak of the crucifixion metaphorically?

The question is not whether Jesus really survived the crucifixion, the question is #1 was there even a Jesus, and #2 if so was there even a crucifixion?

The idea that "Jesus was a man who survived the crucifixion", or that "someone else was crucified in his place", are all late "heretical" beliefs that were later adopted by Muslims, but which are themselves just later legends that developed hundreds of years after the supposed event, these claims have no merit at all.

Tiberius

Jesus didn't die, he just spent the weekend at his dad's place.

The Evil One

No one concludes this; some have remarked that this is, however unlikely, a more likely scenario than him rising from the dead. This is clearly true.

aa5874

The Jesus crucufixion story is fiction. Only a fictitious person can fulfill fictious prophecies.

Tristan Scott

Did Jesus die?

An intersting enough question. By the earlier accounts of Matthew, there were actually two guys named Jesus whom Pilate asked the crowd to chose which should die and which should go free. One was Jesus, a teacher who some claimed to be the "King of the Jews", and the other was a terrorist of sorts named Jesus Barabbas.

Barabbas is an interesting name. Abba was an endearing name used for God, literally it meant Father or "the Father". It could be said that Barabbas meant "Son of the Father" or even Son of God.

If true it must have been confusing to the crowd when Pilate told them "You must choose between Jesus, King of the Jews and Jesus, the Son of God!"

Oy!

JEST2ASK

Docetism is the view that Jesus was God, but not human. Docetists essentially taught that Jesus only appeared to be human, but He in fact was not. Docetism contradicts many Scriptures, with John 1:14 and 1 John 4:1-3 being the most clear refutations of Docetism. Apollinarianism is the view that Jesus was God, but not fully human. Apollinarians taught that Jesus' human spirit was replaced by a divine spirit - that Jesus had a human body and soul, but not a human spirit. Similarly to Docetism

http://www.religion-cults.com/heresies/first.htm
Docetism:
Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.. " This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross and that He did not rise from the dead.


The underlaying question(s) Why should I a non-believer give more cediablity to the writter of John and his assertations when I view his writtings as a reaction to the teachings of others on their interpretation of the earlier gospels (Matthew / Mark / Luke) ... What justification do I have in elavating his view ... it would take some sort of evidence that his version of who / what Jesus was, to be more informed - rather than just what is written within his gospel (his claim to have been an eye-witness etc) ... IMO that is the major problem with speculation about the supernatural eventually to needs to translate into the natural world

I was confused and frustrated by your detailed analysis of John 1:14 with no mention of the possible validity of Docetism / Apollinarianism.


Again sorry for the lack of a coherent presentation hopefully you understand my point .. it was not a debate but simply acknowledgement that there are other views dating back to at least the time of the later biblical writtings ...