Did Jesus proclaim that he was raised from the dead?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Jesus proclaim that he was raised from the dead?

This claim was invented by Paul and the Church. Jesus never made this wrong claim . Did he, please?
Regards

__________
Reference : Post 64 "Jesus was not a Christian "

[JerryMyers]

Weren't some of those prophets also put to death? Weren't some of His disciples also put to death?

Yes, and that’s exactly the point. Jesus fully understood that in conveying God’s message to the people, he, like all the prophets before him, must endure sufferings. The Christians when quoting Jesus saying he had to suffer, make it sound as if Jesus was making a prophecy which he’s not. He was relating his sufferings as a phase in the life of a prophet of God and that all prophets will endure sufferings in their Godly missions.

I am sorry, but there are also many who profess to be Christian who say this: 'when one really studies the Bible'... or... 'when one reads the bible as a whole'... Then they go on to state that Christ meant something different or even completely opposite of what He actually said. From my experience, they almost always do this because what He actually said (or did) contradicts some doctrine that they believe in.

This is how we get the trinity doctrine (probably the most traditional doctrine that you will recognize as being untrue); as well as the doctrine of eternal torment in hell (also untrue); and various others that I will not go into.

I am sure many Christians would disagree with what you just said. Are you a Unitarian Christian, Tam ?

This idea that Christ was not crucified or not raised from the dead is another such doctrine.

The same can be said that this idea that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead is another such doctrine. No ?

Except that Christ has another description for the day of the resurrection: He called it the LAST day.

Not the third day. The LAST day.

This is my Father's will: That everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day." John 6:40

And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:39


"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44


Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. John 12:48

Even Martha called that day the last day.

Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

Well, I would think that you should know that the Day of Resurrection is synonymous with the Last Day. In other words, they are interchangeable. The Day of Resurrection cannot be upon us if the Last Day is not upon us.

What did Jesus say when Martha answered “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day� ? Jesus said “I am the Resurrection�. Christians believe Jesus was talking about his ‘resurrection’ after ‘his’ crucifixion. But he was not. He was responding to Martha’s statement of resurrection of her brother at the last day and he was telling Martha that he is the Sign of Resurrection which mean when you see Jesus again in his second coming on earth, it will be a Sign that the Day of Resurrection/Last Day is approaching near.

He did not quote that. I think you meant to suggest that He was referring to that.

Well, quoting would mean a reference, in part or whole, but, OK, he did not quote the whole Hosea 6:2 verse but when he said he will be raised on the third day, he was definitely making reference to that verse.

Hosea 6 may be symbolic of a future resurrection (of people in general or as being prophetic of Christ being raised from the dead on a singular third day), but Hosea 6 is not stating that Christ was not crucified or raised from the dead after His crucifixion.

In other words, Hosea does not contradict Christ having been crucified and raised from the dead.

Neither did Hosea contradict the fact that Jesus was not crucified nor rose from the dead.

Here are some examples:

[Jesus] answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.� “This temple took forty-six years to build, the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?� But [Jesus] was speaking about the temple of His body. After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that [Jesus] had spoken. John 2:20-22

Note the bold. This verse indeed states that Christ was raised from the dead, because it was AFTER He was raised from the dead that the disciples remembered what He had said.

Interesting ! Interesting NOT because of what John wrote BUT interesting because one have to wonder whether Jesus really said “Destroy the temple and in 3 days I will raise it again� ?? John said he did BUT Mark and Matthew said he didn’t BUT only false witnesses came and said he did !! Luke was silence on this. Well, I would not rely much on John 2:20-22 to confirm Jesus rising from the dead.

He was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches. Acts 2:23


Peter is the one who said that. But this is also an unequivocal pronouncement in the Bible that Christ was put to death, and then raised from the dead.

Don’t you think Acts 2:23 contradict itself ?? How can God release Jesus from the agony of death when raising him from the dead would mean Jesus died and if he died, it means he would have gone thru the full agony of being crucified, speared and finally die ? The only way God released Jesus from the agony of death is to SAVE him from the crucifixion AND THAT’S what God did as He had promised.

Then of course there is the testimony of the apostle who witnessed Him being upon the cross and speaking from the cross:

Near the cross of [Jesus] stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When [Jesus] saw his mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:25-27

Not only did they see Him, they also heard Him.

Sure, it was made to appear so unto them.

This is all in addition to His own words of what would happen; and in addition to the witnesses who testified that He was indeed arrested, tried, beaten, handed over to be crucified, crucified and that He did indeed die upon the cross (every gospel attests to that).

Yes, Jesus was arrested and tried but crucified ?? No, NOT by his own words AFTER the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection. Don’t you know its written in the scripture that God will save Jesus ??

He spoke in parables to the people, but He explained what He meant to His apostles. [/Quote]

Can you quote few examples from the Bible ?

I am confused about what you are saying now (in the part I bolded and underlined). Are you saying that He never died at all?

Why are you confused ?? Did Jesus say he die and rise from the dead AFTER the supposedly crucifixion ??

A - How was it made to appear so unto them, and for what purpose?

Are you implying that God is incapable to make to appear so unto them ??

B - If by showing them His hands and feet, He was correcting and reassuring them that He had not died... then how it formerly appeared to them should not matter and my question remains:

Don't you think even one of them would have mentioned the idea that He was not crucified, that He did not die, if indeed that was true and what He told them afterward?

Of course it matters because it was made to appear so unto that they all believe it was Jesus the prophet who was crucified. Jesus of course, have to reassure them that he was indeed alive and unharmed. What did Jesus say when Thomas finally believe that Jesus was really alive and unharmed after the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection ? Jesus said “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.� – John 20:29

Question is – believe in what ?? Reading back of what Jesus said AFTER the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection, Jesus could only mean to say that those who have seen him alive with their own eyes AFTER the crucifixion can vouch that he was not killed nor crucified but bless are those who did not see Jesus alive with their own eyes AFTER the crucifixion and yet they believe he was not killed nor crucified.

A - God did not forsake Him; He rescued Him from death; raised Him from the dead (giving Him the keys to death and hades).

Well, that would be like saying the King pardon the man from his death penalty after he was executed.

B - I think you might have avoided the point: Christ would never have stood back and allowed someone else to suffer and die in His place.

Ironic, isn’t it ? That the Christians, in their belief, would stand back and allow Jesus to suffer and die for them.

C - There were witnesses who were with Him, who saw Him, even heard Him speak, on the cross.

Of course, it was only made to appear so unto them.

D - Christ only prayed IF POSSIBLE, may this cup be taken from me; if NOT, then YOUR WILL (God's will) be done.

That only prove that Jesus is a true man of God and a prophet of God, doesn’t it ? He prayed to be saved and yet he will accept whatever the outcome of his prayers not to his will but to the Will of God. Fortunately, for him, God did hear his prayers and saved him from the crucifixion. How many of us pray to God for something and when the desired outcome is not forthcoming, we give up on God and say He did not exist because we did not get what we want ?

Yes, I agree. But on both occasions, He is reassuring them that He is not a ghost. Because He was not dead. He was alive. That does not mean that He did not die upon the cross, before being raised to life.

Now, you are contradicting yourself. First you said you agreed and Jesus was not a ghost because he was not dead, he was alive, then you said this does not mean that he did not die ??!

I would not, especially not if I was a prophet, one who came to bear witness to the truth.

I am sorry but who came to bear witness to the truth here ?

If I only expected that I would be killed, then I would say, "I expect that I will be killed, or I think I will be killed, or I might be killed".

Christ also did not say that He 'expected or thought' that He 'might' be killed. He said:


When they came together in Galilee, he (Christ) said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." Matthew 17:22

He did not say that they may kill Him, He did not say that He might be betrayed into the hands of men. He said that they WILL kill him; and on the third day He WILL be raised to life.

Jesus did not say he MAY be killed because he was very certain he will be killed by his enemies. If you are in an aeroplane that is nosediving to the ground from 30,000 feet high, you think you will still be thinking you may be killed or you will be killed ?? Try to imagine yourself in the same predicament as Jesus, then, perhaps, you can understand why he said what he said.

And,

As [Jesus] was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.� Matthew 20:17-19

Again, He is telling them what WILL happen. There are parallel passages in the other gospels.

Sure, Jesus himself did not know he will be saved by God. Jesus prayed to God to be saved but there was no indication that he will be saved, so, he would not have known.

So I will repeat what you said:

He said He would be killed.

Saying He meant that He expected to be killed is changing His words, and putting your own meaning upon His words.

Not really, no one is changing his words. The words he spoke reflect the predicament he was in and anyone in his predicament can expect death. Its like a soldier who go to a war to fight for his country can and will expect to be killed. But that does not mean he definitely will be killed or he must be killed for his country. Similarly, Jesus, with the Jews wanting to kill him for preaching the message of God, can and will expect to be killed. But that does not mean Jesus definitely will be killed or that he must be killed for preaching God’s Message.

I meant just what I said. He is the Son of God.

Not "God the Son"; not some part of a trinity; but the Son of God, the firstborn over all creation. Born from God.

You mind elaborate that further ?
You said Jesus is not God, the Son but yet, he’s the Son of God ?

Who said Jesus is the firstborn over all creation ?? God Himself said that ?? Jesus himself said that ?? Or someone else ??

(I clipped out some things that were already addressed; but if you feel I missed something that you wanted addressed, please let me know)

Not sure what you have clipped out and I am too lazy to go thru the previous posts to find out. But if you said you have already addressed them, I will take your words for them.

Thank You, Tammy, and peace to you and family too.

[JerryMyers]

I have jumped in here without reading what led to this, and so I am having a problem pinpointing your point of view.

Are you arguing that, whatever the gospel authors say, Jesus did not die and was not resurrected? Or are you arguing that the gospel authors themselves did not believe Jesus died and was resurrected?

If you are arguing for the former, it would be better to avoid citing the gospels at all.

if you are arguing that the gospel authors themselves do not believe that Jesus died and was bodily risen, and that these same authors had no intention of communicating otherwise in their gospels, then the burden of proof rests on you; and, quite frankly, it is insuperable. Even Mark's original ending screams against it: for the author clearly puts into his narrative a figure (angel or man) who announces that Jesus is in fact risen. That it does not give the encounter is irrelevant to the question whether the gospel author believed Jesus was risen and was attempting to convey that belief.

So, perhaps some clarification would help others engage here. I hope you are arguing for the former case (that Jesus did not die, though the gospel authors thought he did) and that you have simply used the gospels illegitimately (trying to get the gospel authors to say the opposite of what they clearly have said), for then we can argue on historical grounds. But if you are going to try and show that the gospel authors in fact did not believe that Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected, well, I think/hope that only a couple of members here (in fact, two) will jump on board.

Glad you could jump in and share with us your thoughts, Liam.

Yes, I am saying Jesus did not die nor was he crucified based on what Jesus said and the reactions of the people he spoke to AFTER the supposedly resurrection. I cannot speak on behalf of the Bible authors’ intentions but, I definitely can speak on what they wrote.

The Bible, in particular, the NT, is a collection of books of narrations. What that means is that it records events, what Jesus said, what others said and what others said of what Jesus said. What others said and what others said of what Jesus said may or may not be the truth and thus, they require further validations and cross-checks. So, it really does not matter that “Even Mark's original ending screams against it� as you correctly said it, it’s the author who �clearly puts into his narrative a figure (angel or man) who announces that Jesus is in fact risen�. In other words, it’s the author of the Gospel of Mark who made that statement, NOT Jesus himself.

[Hakeem Alyazeedi]

Hi all

'Rise from dead' does not mean resurrected until proven that Jesus was resurrected because the phrase in itself only means coming from the grave as rendered by the Aramiac Bible at biblehub.com or rising from among the dead as rendered by Darby Bible. Please note that no where it says 'rise from death' but from the dead asxexplained above

[marco]

Hi all

'Rise from dead' does not mean resurrected until proven that Jesus was resurrected because the phrase in itself only means coming from the grave as rendered by the Aramiac Bible at biblehub.com or rising from among the dead as rendered by Darby Bible. Please note that no where it says 'rise from death' but from the dead asxexplained above

It's hard to see what point you are making. According to John 19: 30 we have:
"Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost. "

Of course he may have given up the ghost of one of the thieves but it's sensible to understand he died.
He predicted, metaphorically, he'd destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. He was interred and we are told that the tomb was found empty, and so his predicted resurrection took place.

If you are saying that we should question this, and all miracles, fine. We do.

[tam]

Peace to you Jerry,

Weren't some of those prophets also put to death? Weren't some of His disciples also put to death?

Yes, and that’s exactly the point. Jesus fully understood that in conveying God’s message to the people, he, like all the prophets before him, must endure sufferings. The Christians when quoting Jesus saying he had to suffer, make it sound as if Jesus was making a prophecy which he’s not. He was relating his sufferings as a phase in the life of a prophet of God and that all prophets will endure sufferings in their Godly missions.

And my point was that these ones were also put to death, as Christ was also put to death. Even in the parable of the wicked tenants foretells that the "tenants' wanted to and would kill Him:

There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a tower. Then he rented it out to some tenants and went away on a journey. When the harvest time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his share of the crop. But the tenants seized his servants. They beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first group. But the tenants did the same to them. Finally, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance!’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

I am sorry, but there are also many who profess to be Christian who say this: 'when one really studies the Bible'... or... 'when one reads the bible as a whole'... Then they go on to state that Christ meant something different or even completely opposite of what He actually said. From my experience, they almost always do this because what He actually said (or did) contradicts some doctrine that they believe in.

This is how we get the trinity doctrine (probably the most traditional doctrine that you will recognize as being untrue); as well as the doctrine of eternal torment in hell (also untrue); and various others that I will not go into.

I am sure many Christians would disagree with what you just said. Are you a Unitarian Christian, Tam ?

I am sure that there are many who profess to be Christian who would indeed disagree.

I am not a 'unitarian' Christian. I am a Christian. I belong to Christ. I do not belong to anyone or anything other than Christ; I do not follow anyone or anything other than Christ. So I do not take any other name, such as "unitarian, roman catholic, mormon, jehovahs witness, baptist, anglican, adventist, pentecostal, etc, etc."

This idea that Christ was not crucified or not raised from the dead is another such doctrine.

The same can be said that this idea that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead is another such doctrine. No ?

No. Because no one who accepts Christ having been crucified and raised from the dead has to try and explain away His words. No one has to try and say that Christ did not mean what He said. No one has to try and suggest that He did not know what was going to happen to Him. The entire NT testifies to His death (on the cross), His having died (on the cross) and then Him being raised from the dead. He states clearly that He will be killed and raised from the dead.


The only people who have to explain His words away are those who believe a doctrine that contradicts what Christ said and did.

Except that Christ has another description for the day of the resurrection: He called it the LAST day.

Not the third day. The LAST day.

This is my Father's will: That everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day." John 6:40

And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:39


"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44


Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. John 12:48

Even Martha called that day the last day.

Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

Well, I would think that you should know that the Day of Resurrection is synonymous with the Last Day. In other words, they are interchangeable. The Day of Resurrection cannot be upon us if the Last Day is not upon us.

The point, Jerry, is that Christ used the term "the LAST day" to describe that day. He did not use the term "the third day" to describe that day.

Here are some examples:

[Jesus] answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.� “This temple took forty-six years to build, the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?� But [Jesus] was speaking about the temple of His body. After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that [Jesus] had spoken. John 2:20-22

Note the bold. This verse indeed states that Christ was raised from the dead, because it was AFTER He was raised from the dead that the disciples remembered what He had said.

Interesting ! Interesting NOT because of what John wrote BUT interesting because one have to wonder whether Jesus really said “Destroy the temple and in 3 days I will raise it again� ?? John said he did BUT Mark and Matthew said he didn’t BUT only false witnesses came and said he did !! Luke was silence on this. Well, I would not rely much on John 2:20-22 to confirm Jesus rising from the dead.

First... you said that there was no verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Christ was raised from the dead. This verse was given in response to your claim.

Second... the false witnesses from Mark and Matthew testified falsely that Christ said HE would destroy the (physical) temple. But He never made that threat or spoke those words, as we can see from His words recorded in the book of John. He said to THEM (the pharisees and chief priests),

"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days."

He never threatened to destroy their temple. He said what He would do (raise the temple up in 3 days) if they destroyed 'this temple'.

He was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches. Acts 2:23


Peter is the one who said that. But this is also an unequivocal pronouncement in the Bible that Christ was put to death, and then raised from the dead.

Don’t you think Acts 2:23 contradict itself ?? How can God release Jesus from the agony of death when raising him from the dead would mean Jesus died and if he died, it means he would have gone thru the full agony of being crucified, speared and finally die ? The only way God released Jesus from the agony of death is to SAVE him from the crucifixion AND THAT’S what God did as He had promised.

Again, as above, this verse was given to counter your claim that there is no verse which states unequivocally that Christ died and was raised from the dead.

And no, the verse does not contradict itself. You are confusing the 'agony of death' with 'agony of DYING'.

Christ still died, but death could not hold (keep) Him.

You can see from the verse that Peter believed and stated that Christ had been put to death on the cross, that God raised Him from the dead. This came AFTER Christ had appeared to His disciples. So even after that time, His apostles understood that He had been crucified and raised from the dead.

Then of course there is the testimony of the apostle who witnessed Him being upon the cross and speaking from the cross:

Near the cross of [Jesus] stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When [Jesus] saw his mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:25-27

Not only did they see Him, they also heard Him.

Sure, it was made to appear so unto them.

For what purpose?

This is all in addition to His own words of what would happen; and in addition to the witnesses who testified that He was indeed arrested, tried, beaten, handed over to be crucified, crucified and that He did indeed die upon the cross (every gospel attests to that).

Yes, Jesus was arrested and tried but crucified ?? No, NOT by his own words AFTER the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection. Don’t you know its written in the scripture that God will save Jesus ??

He did save Him. Raising Him from the dead.

He spoke in parables to the people, but He explained what He meant to His apostles.

Can you quote few examples from the Bible ?

Sure.

After the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, His disciple asked Him why He spoke to the people in parables. His answer to them is in verses 11-15, beginning with, "...the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them...". Then He explains to them the meaning of the parable in verse 18,

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means..."

After this He speaks in more parables, and His disciples come and ask Him what he meant by the parable of the weeds in the field, and He explained it to them. (verses 36- 43)


Second witness in Luke 8:9-15

I am confused about what you are saying now (in the part I bolded and underlined). Are you saying that He never died at all?

Why are you confused ?? Did Jesus say he die and rise from the dead AFTER the supposedly crucifixion ??

I am confused because you still have not answered my question. Are you saying that He never died at all? Ever?

And yes, He did say that He would be crucified and raised to life.

As [Jesus] was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.� Matthew 20:17-19


He also told His disciples not to tell anyone about something they saw until after He had been raised from the dead.

As they were coming down the mountain, [Jesus] instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Matthew 17:9


However, I think you are asking, did He ever say that He died and was raised to life, after He had died and was raised to life.


He did, in the passage at the end of Luke. But you think that is an obscure reference to the last day. However, as you can see from the above quote (matthew 20:17-19), He also refers to the third day as when He is raised to life, AFTER being mocked, flogged, and crucified (all things that are part of suffering). The passage at the end of Luke is speaking of the same thing as this prediction here in Matthew.


Regardless, He did not have to say it afterward. His disciples heard Him say it WOULD happen (that He would be killed and then raised to life), then they SAW it happen.

He predicted it. Then it happened. Exactly as He had predicted.

A - How was it made to appear so unto them, and for what purpose?

Are you implying that God is incapable to make to appear so unto them ??

No, I am asking how was it made to appear so unto them and for what purpose.

What exactly happened that it appeared to them that some other man was Christ?

B - If by showing them His hands and feet, He was correcting and reassuring them that He had not died... then how it formerly appeared to them should not matter and my question remains:

Don't you think even one of them would have mentioned the idea that He was not crucified, that He did not die, if indeed that was true and what He told them afterward?

Of course it matters because it was made to appear so unto that they all believe it was Jesus the prophet who was crucified...

I clipped the rest of your response because it does not answer my question. Why did none of them mention the idea that He did not die and was not crucified, if that is what Christ told them afterward?

Clearly, Peter still went on to say after this time that Christ had been crucified and raised from the dead.

A - God did not forsake Him; He rescued Him from death; raised Him from the dead (giving Him the keys to death and hades).

Well, that would be like saying the King pardon the man from his death penalty after he was executed.

Are you implying God is not capable of doing this?

B - I think you might have avoided the point: Christ would never have stood back and allowed someone else to suffer and die in His place.

Ironic, isn’t it ? That the Christians, in their belief, would stand back and allow Jesus to suffer and die for them.

It is not up to us. As well, Peter TWICE objected and even tried to stop this from happening, and TWICE Christ rebuked Him.

From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!" he said. “This shall never happen to You!� But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.� Matthew 16:21 - 23

“I told you that I am He,� Jesus replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.� This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.� Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. “Put your sword back in its sheath! Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink� the cup the Father has given Me?

**

Notice also His first words, "if you are looking for me, let these men go".

These are not the words of a man who would allow someone else to suffer and die in his place, being mistaken for Him.

C - There were witnesses who were with Him, who saw Him, even heard Him speak, on the cross.

Of course, it was only made to appear so unto them.

How and for what purpose? And if that were true, why did none of His apostles state so (or believe it) after Christ supposedly came and told them He had not been crucified?

D - Christ only prayed IF POSSIBLE, may this cup be taken from me; if NOT, then YOUR WILL (God's will) be done.

That only prove that Jesus is a true man of God and a prophet of God, doesn’t it ? He prayed to be saved and yet he will accept whatever the outcome of his prayers not to his will but to the Will of God. Fortunately, for him, God did hear his prayers and saved him from the crucifixion. How many of us pray to God for something and when the desired outcome is not forthcoming, we give up on God and say He did not exist because we did not get what we want ?

Actually, your reasoning lends even more credence to the fact that Christ was crucified. Because He would have proved that He would not give up on God, even during torture and suffering and death, even though He asked for the cup to be removed from Him (only if possible, though. He never wanted His will to usurp His Father's will).

Yes, I agree. But on both occasions, He is reassuring them that He is not a ghost. Because He was not dead. He was alive. That does not mean that He did not die upon the cross, before being raised to life.

Now, you are contradicting yourself. First you said you agreed and Jesus was not a ghost because he was not dead, he was alive, then you said this does not mean that he did not die ??!

There is no contradiction. He was not dead when He appeared to His apostles. He had been raised from the dead. Raised to life. So He was alive when He appeared to His apostles and He was alive when He ascended into heaven.

I meant just what I said. He is the Son of God.

Not "God the Son"; not some part of a trinity; but the Son of God, the firstborn over all creation. Born from God.

You mind elaborate that further ?
You said Jesus is not God, the Son but yet, he’s the Son of God ?

Are you not the son of your father? The son of a man? Would you then turn around and describe yourself as "a man, the son?"


I do not know why people say God the Son, except perhaps to indicate that God is a trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).

But Christ is the Son of His Father (God); like you are the son of your father (a man).


Peace again to you and your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JerryMyers]

And my point was that these ones were also put to death, as Christ was also put to death. Even in the parable of the wicked tenants foretells that the "tenants' wanted to and would kill Him:

Yes, there are prophets who were put to death BUT that does not mean Jesus too must be put to death. Just as there are many soldiers who had died fighting for their country BUT that does not mean ALL soldiers must die for their country. The soldiers are fully aware of the risks and consequences of being a soldier just as Jesus was fully aware of the sufferings he will have to endure of being a prophet of God.

As for the parable of the wicked tenants, well, it’s just one of the many parables told, meant to be taken as a lesson and NOT to be taken literally or as a prophecy.

I am not a 'unitarian' Christian. I am a Christian. I belong to Christ. I do not belong to anyone or anything other than Christ; I do not follow anyone or anything other than Christ. So I do not take any other name, such as "unitarian, roman catholic, mormon, jehovahs witness, baptist, anglican, adventist, pentecostal, etc, etc."

OK, I can respect that.

No. Because no one who accepts Christ having been crucified and raised from the dead has to try and explain away His words. No one has to try and say that Christ did not mean what He said. No one has to try and suggest that He did not know what was going to happen to Him. The entire NT testifies to His death (on the cross), His having died (on the cross) and then Him being raised from the dead. He states clearly that He will be killed and raised from the dead.

The entire NT are narrations of events, what Jesus said and what other people said. I just chose to give priority to what Jesus said over what others said.

The only people who have to explain His words away are those who believe a doctrine that contradicts what Christ said and did.

Well, I did explain Jesus’ words but it’s not what you want to hear so, you dismissed them. That’s OK.

The point, Jerry, is that Christ used the term "the LAST day" to describe that day. He did not use the term "the third day" to describe that day.

Well, to your point - Jesus NEVER use the term ‘Christian’ to describe his followers and yet today, Christians say they are called ‘Christians’ because they follow Jesus !

First... you said that there was no verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Christ was raised from the dead. This verse was given in response to your claim.

…And I will say it again – there’s not a single verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Jesus was raised from the dead… and you claimed these verses John 2:20-22 state otherwise ?? Really ??

Well, lets see what transpired for Jesus to say what he said :

As Jesus entered the temple courts, he became angry when he saw people exchanging money, selling cattle, sheep and doves in the temple courts. He then made a whip and cleared the temple courts, shouting “Stop making my Father’s House into a market place!�.. The people are, understandably, annoyed by his actions, so they asked him “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?� It was only then that Jesus said “Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days�. Now, lets ask ourselves honestly – does that sounds like Jesus was talking about his body ? No, what Jesus just said is an example of a hyperbole statement – an intentional exaggerated statement to emphasize a point – in response to the people who had just questioned him on whose authority gave him the rights to clear the temple courts. By saying ‘Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days’ Jesus was emphasizing that his authority came from God whose authority is so great that even if they destroy the temple, he can raise it up again in 3 days. Jesus, of course, was making a hyperbole statement to emphasize his authority. The people, of course, did not understand this and took it literally.

Second... the false witnesses from Mark and Matthew testified falsely that Christ said HE would destroy the (physical) temple. But He never made that threat or spoke those words, as we can see from His words recorded in the book of John. He said to THEM (the pharisees and chief priests),

"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days."

He never threatened to destroy their temple. He said what He would do (raise the temple up in 3 days) if they destroyed 'this temple'.

Yes, but as I just explained above, that statement is a hyperbole statement. You need to understand the environment and the situation Jesus was in for him to say what he said and that was NOT the only time Jesus used hyperbole statements. Just to quote a couple of them :

– “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.� – Mark 10:25 - a hyperbole statement to emphasize that it’s not easy and not every one can enter the kingdom of God and NOT as if a camel can go thru the eye of a needle.

- “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing� – Matthew 6:3 – a hyperbole statement to emphasize that when you give alms or charities, do it secretively and not as a show-off and NOT as if the left hand and the right hand have brains of their own to know what each other do.

And no, the verse does not contradict itself. You are confusing the 'agony of death' with 'agony of DYING'.

Christ still died, but death could not hold (keep) Him.

You can see from the verse that Peter believed and stated that Christ had been put to death on the cross, that God raised Him from the dead. This came AFTER Christ had appeared to His disciples. So even after that time, His apostles understood that He had been crucified and raised from the dead.

The point is - IF Jesus died, then, he would have gone thru the full agony of, as you said, dying before meeting his death. When he ‘died’, then there’s no more agony, no more sufferings for him, at least, not on this earth. The next stage of your life after-death would be the Day of Resurrection/Last Day where all the dead will be resurrected for Judgment Day.

So, what is the difference between ‘agony of death’ and the ‘agony of dying’?? If you have experience in giving birth, is there a difference between ‘agony of labour’ and ‘agony of labouring’ ?

So, I will say it again - The only way God released Jesus from the agony of death is to have Jesus SAVED from the crucifixion itself AND THAT’S what God did.

For what purpose?

No one can tell you that for sure as only God will know that just as no one, not even Jesus, can know the Hour but only God will know that.

He did save Him. Raising Him from the dead.

‘Raising him from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning Jesus was saved from what is a sure certain death, that is, from the crucifixion which was for sure would be a certain death for him. Its not uncommon to hear people said that they came back from the dead after going thru or saved from certain death ordeals.

Sure. After the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, His disciple asked Him why He spoke to the people in parables. His answer to them is in verses 11-15, beginning with, "...the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them...". Then He explains to them the meaning of the parable in verse 18,

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means..."

After this He speaks in more parables, and His disciples come and ask Him what he meant by the parable of the weeds in the field, and He explained it to them. (verses 36- 43)

Second witness in Luke 8:9-15

Thanks for the examples. What was clear here was that his disciples have no clues as to what he was talking and they HAD TO ASK him for the explanations - its not that for his disciples he would just explain to them WITHOUT having to be asked, which is the impression I got from you when you said for his disciples he would explain to them. I am sure that if other people, who are not his disciples, asked him for explanations, he would explain to them too.

I am confused because you still have not answered my question. Are you saying that He never died at all? Ever?

I thought that was very clear and obvious. Yes, I am saying Jesus never die from the time he was born to the time he ascended to God. Why do you think I asked you “Did Jesus say he died and rose from the dead AFTER the supposedly crucifixion ??� ?

As [Jesus] was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.� Matthew 20:17-19

Of course, Jesus himself would not know for sure he will be saved so, under his circumstances, he can and did expect himself to be betrayed, tried unfairly and sentenced to death.

He predicted it. Then it happened. Exactly as He had predicted.

On the contrary – he expected it, that is, he WILL be betrayed, falsely charged for blasphemy and sentenced to death. Then it happened, that is, he WAS betrayed, WAS falsely charged for blasphemy and WAS sentenced to death. Exactly as he expected.

No, I am asking how was it made to appear so unto them and for what purpose.

What exactly happened that it appeared to them that some other man was Christ?

‘No’ would mean you would agree that it’s NOT impossible for God to make it ‘to appear so unto them’ and you are just asking how it was done and for what purpose – would that be a fair assessment of your statement above ??

I clipped the rest of your response because it does not answer my question. Why did none of them mention the idea that He did not die and was not crucified, if that is what Christ told them afterward?

After the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection, the Bible did not record Jesus explicitly saying he died and was resurrected nor did it record Jesus explicitly saying he did not die. So, we are left with what Jesus did say and the reactions of the people who saw him alive after the supposedly resurrection. Based on what we have in the Bible, that after the supposedly resurrection, his words and the reactions of those who saw him, tells us Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

It is not up to us.

Correct. Then, why are you questioning God for what purpose He would make it appear so unto them in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion ??

this from happening, and TWICE Christ rebuked Him.

From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!" he said. “This shall never happen to You!� But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.� Matthew 16:21 - 23

Peter was just reacting as any concerned man would do. Would you allow your father or loved one go to a place that you know will bring harm and will pose a grave danger to him ?

“I told you that I am He,� Jesus replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.� This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.� Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. “Put your sword back in its sheath! Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink� the cup the Father has given Me?

Notice also His first words, "if you are looking for me, let these men go".

These are not the words of a man who would allow someone else to suffer and die in his place, being mistaken for Him.

You need to understand the circumstances and the environment Jesus was in. Here, Jesus knew the Jews were only interested to arrest him, NOT any of his disciples. So, instead of having all his disciples arrested or harmed, Jesus did the right thing and asked the soldiers who came to arrest him to leave the others alone since they came ONLY to arrest him, NOT his disciples. Again, Jesus did the right thing when Simon Peter drew his sword, he asked him to put back his sword in its sheath. WHY ? Because it was only ONE man who drew out his sword to fight NOT everyone and it would not be possible for one man to overcome the soldiers. Would Jesus do the same thing if all his followers had drawn their swords to defend him from being arrested ? The answer is NO, he would allow his followers to fight for him. So, your statement that Jesus will not allow anyone to suffer and die (as a possible outcome of fighting to defend him) is FALSE and BASELESS.

How and for what purpose? And if that were true, why did none of His apostles state so (or believe it) after Christ supposedly came and told them He had not been crucified?

As I said it was only made to appear so unto them and as you said, its not up to us to know. I can only speculate as to for what purpose BUT its only God who will know His true purpose just as many people can speculate when will be the Hour BUT its only God who know the actual Hour.

Actually, your reasoning lends even more credence to the fact that Christ was crucified. Because He would have proved that He would not give up on God, even during torture and suffering and death, even though He asked for the cup to be removed from Him (only if possible, though. He never wanted His will to usurp His Father's will).

Not really. You are assuming that Jesus’ prayers for God to save him are not answered BUT you are wrong as even the scriptures said his prayers to save him from his ordeal will be answered by God.

There is no contradiction. He was not dead when He appeared to His apostles. He had been raised from the dead. Raised to life. So He was alive when He appeared to His apostles and He was alive when He ascended into heaven.

Again, if he was not dead when he appeared to his apostles, that’s because he was never crucified. ‘Raised from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning he was saved from a sure and certain death.

Are you not the son of your father? The son of a man? Would you then turn around and describe yourself as "a man, the son?"

Of course, I am the son of my father (a man), however, it would also not be wrong for me to say I am a man, the son, now would it ? Although that would be repetitive for a normal person as its understood that a son must be a man.

I do not know why people say God the Son, except perhaps to indicate that God is a trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).

But Christ is the Son of His Father (God); like you are the son of your father (a man).

Well, on this matter, you just cannot equate Jesus to any normal man as Jesus do not have a biological father. So, when you said Jesus is the son of God, the correct understanding from the Bible is that he is the servant of God. It does not matter whether you capitalised the letter ‘s’ for ‘Son of God’ or not as the original manuscripts from which all the English Bibles you have today are translated from, are in a semitic language (Hebrew, Latin Greek, Aramaic) which do not make any distinction between capital letters and small letters.

The impression I get from you is that Jesus was born out of God which would mean he is also God as say, the offspring of a leopard has to be a leopard too. However, you said Jesus is not God, which is rather confusing.

Peace to you too, Tammy.

[marco]

Of course, Jesus himself would not know for sure he will be saved so, under his circumstances, he can and did expect himself to be betrayed, tried unfairly and sentenced to death.

You paint Jesus as uninformed, unauthoritative, with a mission that seems quite pointless. The Islamic view is that God saved Jesus from crucifixion, but to reach this view we have to stretch Scripture to breaking point or ignore it completely. We know Jesus suffered the extreme penalty because it is referred to in secular writing, by Tacitus. And it is more than reasonable to accept he died.

You want us to believe that at some unknown point in the judgement-crucifixion scenario, God intervened and perhaps some other poor soul was killed instead of Jesus. Or perhaps you have some other odd explanation.

Your view comes from nowhere. Of course it is possible to theorise and invent a story by re-interpreting biblical phrases. I would prefer to believe Tacitus.

So let's accept he was crucified until, that is, overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears. You've not overwhelmed us with your "evidence."

[polonius]

Matthew 16:21, “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.�

RESPONSE: Test everything. Retain what is true. But put away childish things. (St Paul).

It is interesting that Jesus was supposed to have been raised from the dead in 30-33 AD, the most amazing fact in history. But no one wrote anything about it until Paul about 20 years later.

[rikuoamero]

Matthew 16:21, “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.�

RESPONSE: Test everything. Retain what is true. But put away childish things. (St Paul).

It is interesting that Jesus was supposed to have been raised from the dead in 30-33 AD, the most amazing fact in history. But no one wrote anything about it until Paul about 20 years later.

It is precisely that, that has me not believing it happened. Oh, yes, there can be all sorts of reasons given for why we don't have earlier records, but at the end of the day, the supposed most amazing thing ever in all of history 'happened'...and there is little to no evidence to support it.

[JerryMyers]

You paint Jesus as uninformed, unauthoritative, with a mission that seems quite pointless. The Islamic view is that God saved Jesus from crucifixion, but to reach this view we have to stretch Scripture to breaking point or ignore it completely. We know Jesus suffered the extreme penalty because it is referred to in secular writing, by Tacitus. And it is more than reasonable to accept he died.

You want us to believe that at some unknown point in the judgement-crucifixion scenario, God intervened and perhaps some other poor soul was killed instead of Jesus. Or perhaps you have some other odd explanation.

Your view comes from nowhere. Of course it is possible to theorise and invent a story by re-interpreting biblical phrases. I would prefer to believe Tacitus.

So let's accept he was crucified until, that is, overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears. You've not overwhelmed us with your "evidence."

Firstly, let me correct you - I see Jesus as a man of God, a unique ‘one of a kind’ man as he was born of a virgin, highly respected, not only as a prophet of God but also as a rabbi, whose prayers to God to save him from his ordeal was answered and he was saved by God from the most humiliating public death. You, on the hand, painted Jesus as a man who was equal to God and perhaps God-reincarnated who had to die the most humiliating death for the sin of man and you said you believe all this because of a secular writing reference by Tacitus ?? Seriously ?? Tacitus was a Roman historian whose writings began in the 2nd century AD, which would mean his writings was about 200 years AFTER Jesus had departed. This would also mean that he, like Paul, had never met Jesus in person and his source(s) of information have to come from a third, fourth or even fifth party. Moreover, it was reported a large part of his writing which would have covered the trial of Jesus are lost. Now, you want to place all your faith on this man’s accounts, that’s your choice.

Secondly, because I said Jesus did not know he will be saved, therefore I painted Jesus as uninformed, unauthoritative, with a mission that seems quite pointless?? Get real. Jesus, although a great prophet of God, is just a man, in fact, he himself, on many occasions referred himself as the son of man. As a man, there’s no way he could have known that he will be saved. He prayed earnestly to God to save him BUT there were no signs or any indication that he will be saved and because he did not know his fate, that’s why at the end of his prayer to God to be saved, he said ‘yet not to my will but to your Will be done..’ That does not mean he is uninformed – Jesus was the most informed man in his time in matters relating to God but matters relating to his fate, he, like any other man, would not know unless God tell him in ways only God knows how. Similarly, with authoritative, Jesus was the most authoritative man in matters relating to God but he has no authoritative over matters relating to day-to-day affairs and he has no authoritative power over the power of the day. If he has that authoritative, then no one would dare to arrest him, let alone put him on trial.

Thirdly, what makes you think I think Jesus’ mission was almost pointless ? Jesus’ mission was to bring the Jews, whom he referred to as the black sheep, back to the fold of God. Did he succeed or not ?? What do you think ?

So, if you want to get into any discussion about Jesus, I suggest you make references to the Bible, in particular, of what Jesus said and understood and NOT on others or other accounts like Tacitus’ unless of course, you feel Tacitus had more credibility than the Bible.