Toto

Repetitious hobby horse riding from aa5874 split to here

Amaleq13

He was already dead so there was no need to hasten his death.

aa5874

Well, if you assume Jesus did exist, and assume he was crucified, it surely can be assumed he died. Hiis buried body was never seen again when visited by the women or Peter.

There are many possibilities. Jesus may been placed initially in a tomb and then later maybe in the dead of night, removed by the disciples to simulate a resurrection, and buried somewhere else.

Or Jesus may have left the tomb injured badly and went into hiding and died in some secluded place unknown to the disciples.

But based on the information in the NT, if the supernatural is eliminated, Jesus did die, it was claimed he gave up the ghost.

Mark 15.37 The records of the NT show that Jesus did die unless you want to assume he survived.

spamandham

Step back for a moment and forget Kersten's arguments.

Now. What do you consider the reasonableness that the Roman's would have crucified a man, and then released his body before he was actually dead? Consider in particular, that the only accounts that he was seen after death involve people who were uncertain it was even him...

Joan of Bark

Or the centurion involved was a follower of Jesus and wanted everyone else to think He was dead (Kersten's argument).

Joan of Bark

Kersten argues that He did survive and that's why those who looked into His tomb found no body. GJohn was writing on two levels, stating that Jesus died while giving information that indicates to anyone in the know that in fact He was helped into the tomb while still alive, where He recuperated. Kersten is trying to find a naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb. (Read the OP again, and remember I'm just the messenger).

Joan of Bark

If they thought He was dead because they were fooled (with the help of His followers), I find it possible. Screwups happen, especially in the backwoods of the empire.

I admit that the accounts of those who claimed to see Him post-resurrection are dubious.

aa5874

Since you have no supporting evidence, survival of Jesus cannot be the only option for an empty tomb.

That is basic.

There are other possibilities bearing in mind, based on the NT, and the church writers, it is multiple-attested that Jesus did die.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writers called Paul wrote that Jesus died.

And, the survival theory introduces another problem, when did Jesus really die if he is assumed to have lived? There is no information anywhere at all of how Jesus would have died for the last and final time. I don't think Jesus was crucified twice.

One naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb, it was to stage a resurrection.

Huon

http://www.spinninglobe.net/jesusinindia.htm

The thesis of Kersten is that Jesus lived in India after his crucifixion.
So, Kersten needs the survival of JC. Another hobby horse...

Amaleq13

That isn't an argument. It is speculation without supporting evidence and contrary to the existing evidence (ie the text).

Refraining from breaking the legs of a crucifixion victim is not a very good way to convince people that the victim is dead. Leaving his legs intact would more likely suggest the opposite to anyone watching.

"Hey, they must really want that guy to suffer. They only broke the other two guys' legs."

In the end, the entire leg-breaking scene seems more like theologically-motivated fiction intended to "fulfill" the passage interpreted to predict that Jesus would have no bones broken.