Christendom inconsistent beliefs #3: Christ never died?

[Eloi]

Oddly enough, this is the belief of all of Christendom.

However, Jesus said just the opposite:

Rev. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet.
And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.
... 2:8 “And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again ..."

If Jesus says that he "became dead" and "came to life again", why do theologians and religious leaders of Christendom say that he never died, and they say even that he "resurrected himself"? Isn't that a clear denial of Jesus' statements in this regard?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #24]

Which aspect was Jesus...the body or the spirit?

He was raised with a SPIRIT body. Read I Corinthians 15 to see that there are two types of bodies---spirit and physical. They both are real. People don't have spirit bodies living inside them. They are EITHER spirit persons OR physical persons.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #28]

When you wrote;

So, after his spirit left his body, his body became dead, but his spirit obviously remained living.

For resurrection purposes, Jesus placed his spirit back into his body, and his body became alive again.

Which way were you looking at it?

After his spirit left his body, I would say he was in the spirit...but when he resurrected, he was clearly in a spiritual (yet physical) body.

So I don't know what to call it....perhaps his body was physical but with a spiritual twist to it?

You asked what aspect was it, I don't know.

So it could be argued that Jesus never died - only his body died. Later to be resurrected when Jesus returned to said body.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #24]

Which aspect was Jesus...the body or the spirit?

He was raised with a SPIRIT body. Read I Corinthians 15 to see that there are two types of bodies---spirit and physical. They both are real.

Assuming that they are both real, are you therefore suggesting that it wasn't the old body which was resurrected, but that a new body ["Spirit-body"] replaced the old one?

People don't have spirit bodies living inside them. They are EITHER spirit persons OR physical persons.

So in that are you arguing that Jesus was first a "physical-person" and then became a "spirit-person"?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #24]

Which aspect was Jesus...the body or the spirit?

He was raised with a SPIRIT body. Read I Corinthians 15 to see that there are two types of bodies---spirit and physical. They both are real.

Assuming that they are both real, are you therefore suggesting that it wasn't the old body which was resurrected, but that a new body ["Spirit-body"] replaced the old one?

People don't have spirit bodies living inside them. They are EITHER spirit persons OR physical persons.

So in that are you arguing that Jesus was first a "physical-person" and then became a "spirit-person"?

Yes, you could say that. He was a spirit-person in heaven before he was sent to Earth, and then he was born a perfect physical human being. He died, paying the ransom for the lives of each person making up mankind, and did not take back his physical body. He was brought to life "in the spirit." (I Peter 3:18) So, yes:

spirit person -> physical person -> spirit person

He did not take back his physical body, for if he did he would be taking back the ransom payment.

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So it could be argued that Jesus never died - only his body died. Later to be resurrected when Jesus returned to said body.

Depends on how you look at it

A part of him did die (his body), but scripture teaches us that the body isn't the end all-be all of a person.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #34]

So you are saying that Jesus was a 'spirit body' and then he [somehow] left his spirit body and took on a material body which died [and so Jesus died because he was that material body] and then he [the material body] was resurrected but it was no longer the material body but the spirit body, even that you also say "He did not take back his physical body"

The idea as you are currently explaining it, necessitates Jesus being something other than either a 'spirit body or a physical body'.

You also claimed that a 'spirit body' could not inhabit a material body - when you wrote "People don't have spirit bodies living inside them. They are EITHER spirit persons OR physical persons."

This appears to be in conflict with Christians stories regarding material forms being possessed by 'unclean spirits'.

Do you have any explanation for this contradiction?

[William]

So it could be argued that Jesus never died - only his body died. Later to be resurrected when Jesus returned to said body.

Depends on how you look at it

Like how two people calling themselves Christians believe opposite things yet each one claims to be speaking the truth?

A part of him did die (his body), but scripture teaches us that the body isn't the end all-be all of a person.

I think it fair to say that scripture teaches both beliefs.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Like how two people calling themselves Christians believe opposite things yet each one claims to be speaking the truth?

Do you know anyone of whom you agree with 100% on everything?

I think it fair to say that scripture teaches both beliefs.

When I die, the "I" (physical) part of me dies...while the "I" spiritual part of me remains living.

That part of the scripture is clear and leave it up to a unbeliever to sensationalize and make a big deal out of nothing, actually.

[William]

Like how two people calling themselves Christians believe opposite things yet each one claims to be speaking the truth?

Do you know anyone of whom you agree with 100% on everything?

I think it fair to say that scripture teaches both beliefs.

When I die, the "I" (physical) part of me dies...while the "I" spiritual part of me remains living.

That part of the scripture is clear and leave it up to a unbeliever to sensationalize and make a big deal out of nothing, actually.

The point is not if anyone gets on 100% with anyone else.

It is not about what 'the unbeliever' is not believing, but rather my argument is pointing to the reality that Christians are believing opposite things, so if they can do this rightfully, I can surmise that and think it fair to say that scripture teaches both beliefs.

That way, I at least avoid getting embroiled/distracted by the "True Christian" fallacy and can focus on the important stuff.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The point is not if anyone gets on 100% with anyone else.

Then it was irrelevant for you to mention the fact that Christians do not always agree with each other.

It is not about what 'the unbeliever' is not believing, but rather my argument is pointing to the reality that Christians are believing opposite things, so if they can do this rightfully, I can surmise that and think it fair to say that scripture teaches both beliefs.

You can surmise whatever you wish, but just know that you are going beyond what the authors intended, and what believers themselves believe.

So you are on an island all by yourself and if you like it, I love it.

That way, I at least avoid getting embroiled/distracted by the "True Christian" fallacy and can focus on the important stuff.

Why would an unbelieve focus on the important stuff pertaining to a religion that he doesn't believe in?