Eowyn

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...us+documentary (BBC, English speech, google poster added arabic subtitles)

This video alleges that if Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but later came to, that he as well as others would believe that he was truly resurrected. What do you think?

RUmike

You would need to think about the physical likelihood of a man surviving crucifixion and then further surviving burial with no medical treatment. In my non-expert opinion, that likelihood is next to zero. As far as I can remember, there is one case where a man or two survived crucifixion, but that was only because Josephus had permission to remove the body from the cross before the crucifixion was complete (sorry, I don't have any reference handy, and certainly could be recalling that improperly).

If this scenario were true, what happened when Jesus died a second time? No one noticed? Or everyone suppressed that fact completely? I think the whole idea sounds really implausible.

dongiovanni1976x

Mind you this was THE BEST care possible of his time! And only one of them survived. So even if Jesus could have survived with the best care of the day, it would be highly unlikely that people would believe he was resurrected from the dead in a glrious new body when he approached them all mangled up etc.
This whole idea was concoted too fast in response to Christian missionaries to Muslims. Once it became the accepted docteine Muslims are very reluctant to let go of the idea...it just wasn't thought out very well. I believe that Jesus almost certainly died on the cross.

Eowyn

The movie says that it took days to die on the cross, Jesus was there for hours. Those guys from the Philippines get themselves nailed to the cross for an hour...

RUmike

First off, the passion narratives aren't necessarily a reliable account of the specifics of the crucifixion. Historically speaking, it is unlikely followers of Jesus were there to witness any of it. Secondly, the Romans would generally see to it the person was dead first before taking him down. Lastly, Roman practice was to ruthlessly flog the soon-to-be crucified. I don't think the Philippines flogged themselves first.

JEST2ASK

Do not the gospels contain accounts of disciples seeing and feeling the wounds ...Then the whole He ascended part of the gospels (to out do Moses, who noone knows where he was buried & Elijah (& the other dude)).... This is all speculation of course, but no more unlikely than the current story ...

dongiovanni1976x

Such references are better seen in the development and evolution of the sarcicist tradition. Paul does not seem to believe that there was any bodily resurrection. In fact Platonic tradition would abhor a corruptible fleshy carcass ascending past the lunar orbe of heavenly bodies. Paul speaks of a new incorruptible body and that this shell would be traded for this new heavenly one. Luke's account does not and should not be taken literally here.

JEST2ASK

What ... you man they are are not first hand accounts ... with multiple references in contemporary (to the time) historical literature ... Oh the shame ... the shame .. and no one told me why am I always the last to find out ... I better call Mel G.

Malachi151

Why can't people just acknowledge that the whole story is a myth?

Also, I always assumed that the story of bodily ascention was used to explain why there is no bolidy evidence for this person.

Chili

Jesus died to set Christ free and rose again to be on the other side of Christ, subservient this time and no longer the usurper he once was.

So what is so complicated about that?