When Jesus/God died..

[Eliza10]

…in my opinion, Jesus did not die on Cross, God helped him save his life and did not forsook him. Jesus later died in India according to one tradition at the very ripe age of 120 years.
Thanks

It takes a whole lot of far-reaching faith to believe Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but instead went on to India to die 70 years later. Peacefully, of old age, I suppose? But there is no way he’s be in India without word getting to Thomas, who was there as apostle. Unless He was mascarading as something other than Himself. Which would make Him not Himself.

Yes, this is a theory that takes a whole pile of faith, with blinders, and also a big absence of knowledge.

But I think you need your own thread for this one. It doesn’t answer Sara’s question.

…http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/images/magdalenecorreggio1.jpg

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Hi
Sorry to interrept you.
Jesus is said to have spoken these words " Father, why have you forsaken me?" on the Cross; but in fact, in my opinion, Jesus did not die on Cross, God helped him save his life and did not forsook him. Jesus later died in India according to one tradition at the very ripe age of 120 years.
Thanks

As I said when you posted this before, Jesus was not saying God was forsaking Him, He was reciting the first line of Psalm 22. God the Father could never forsake Jesus because they are One.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that Jesus did not die on the cross. However, I’m curious about the India thing. Is that in the quran or is that just legend?

It would seem extremely contradictory to believe that Jesus was alive in India while the supposedly "false"religion of Christianity was taking root. Were He any sort of a worthwhile “man” or prophet, He would have never allowed His former disciples to deify Him. So, it makes much more sense that things happened as the Gospels say they happened OR Jesus was a very bad man. I choose to believe the former, of course. But if one believes in the India story, I cannot see how one could conclude that Jesus was a good man or prophet.

Back to the OP, I think your original question has been answered. Heaven was not empty when Jesus died. Here is the thing that will really blow your mind about God (at least, it does for me). God is everywhere, at every “time”, simultaneously. He is always present. Contemplate His name for a moment “I AM”, it really says a lot in those two little words. Heaven could never be empty because God is everywhere (except in hell where God wills not to be). God the Father and the Holy Spirit were, in a spiritual sense, with Jesus, in Heaven, and everywhere else in the world at the time of the Crucifixion. Sort of mind blowing, but that is what omnipresent means.

By the way, read Psalm 22. In the my Bible it calls this Psalm “the Psalm of an Innocent Person”. Know that it was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born and Christians believe it was a foreshadowing of His Crucifixion. It is about an innocent person being persecuted and still offering up praise and glory to God.

 

[Eliza10]

I have no religion thank very much. If God was in Jesus , heaven was empty; right.
I am here looking for answers to my questions.

Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. But they are also 3 separate. Three in one. That is the mystery of the Trinity. The mystery of the Trnity is explained in many beautiful and inspired ways, but no one can fully grasp the things of God. I have heard it explained that their love makes them one.

I do think the great mysteries of God tax the greatest of minds but I also think the truths of God are simple enough for the simpliest of us to grasp. Therefore I will try to answer from my own understanding! But I am willing to be corrected if I have mis-said a truth of our faith.

We know that when Jesus was risen, He was seen in more place than one at the same time. Also we know this is said to be true of some Saints - they do not even have ressurected bodies, and witnesses swore they were in more than one place at the same time. Padre Pio was one, and there were others. Its called bi-location, I think?

So, of course Jesus can do this. He can appear in more than one place at a time and be fully there, in each and every place. So also then God can.

So, if when Jesus said that God had forsaken Him, He meant the Father was not present with Him at that time, then God the Father of course was in Heaven. And He would always be in Heaven. Because if there was ever a moment when God was not in Heaven, then Heaven wouldn’t be Heaven. The absense of God would make is some other place. Not Heaven. So God is always there.

Another mystery is, as Jesus is Lord, when He was on earth, was he also in heaven? This is a mystery that I am sure greater minds than mine have contemplated and have answers for.

…http://www.advanced-embroidery-designs.com/cart/photos/16145t.jpg

 

[Eliza10]

…Jesus not saying God was forsaking Him, He was reciting the first line of Psalm 22. God the Father could never forsake Jesus because they are One…

Yes, of course God never forsoke His Son. But do you think that because Jesus came to earth as man, to experience and know all that we experience as man (without sinning) that He experienced feeling the absense of the presence of God? And that this is what He ws expressing when He recited the Psalm?

We know that some many of the Saints - perhaps all - experienced a time of the completre absence of God. God did not desert them, but, for a time, for a dark night of the soul, they experienced absence of the presence of God. I do not believe God ever forsoke these saints, only that He did not allow them to feel and know His presence during that time.

…http://www.saintannestanley.co.uk/Images/vinci.jpg

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

John 1

43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.”
44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
“Come and see,” said Philip.

47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.”

48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

49Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”

50Jesus said, “**You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. **You shall see greater things than that.” 51He then added, “I tell you the truth, you[m] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Jesus demonstrated his omni-presence to Nathanael by seeing him under the fig tree. Merely claiming that Jesus had good eyesight in this text does not make sense.

 

[jimmy85]

When Jesus died it was recorded he said " Father, why have you forsaken me?"
If Jesus was God why would he say that? If he was God he would have known “heaven” was empty and unattended because he was in human form.

He was relating himself with mankind, and with the feeling that mankind of being forsaken of God, that feeling that we sometiems have in our lifes.

read the psalm 22 it was written long before Jesus was born:

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=19

 

[paarsurrey]

It would seem extremely contradictory to believe that Jesus was alive in India while the supposedly "false"religion of Christianity was taking root. Were He any sort of a worthwhile “man” or prophet, He would have never allowed His former disciples to deify Him. So, it makes much more sense that things happened as the Gospels say they happened OR Jesus was a very bad man. I choose to believe the former, of course. But if one believes in the India story, I cannot see how one could conclude that Jesus was a good man or prophet.

Hi
Jesus’ all disciples deserted him on the Cross, so perhaps Jesus was annoyed with them and he did not confide in him. What Jesus had to worry what was being done at Rome, his assignment from GodAllahYHWH was restricted to Jews so under guidance from Him he went in search of the lost tribes of the House of Israel.
Also the means of communications at that time were not so perfect as in these days.
Anyway in my opinion it is a reality that Jesus died in Sirinagar,Kashmir, India.
Thanks

The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Hi
Jesus’ all disciples deserted him on the Cross, so perhaps Jesus was annoyed with them and he did not confide in him. What Jesus had to worry what was being done at Rome, his assignment from GodAllahYHWH was restricted to Jews so under guidance from Him he went in search of the lost tribes of the House of Israel.
Also the means of communications at that time were not so perfect as in these days.
Anyway in my opinion it is a reality that Jesus died in Sirinagar,Kashmir, India.
Thanks

The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908

You are wrong on this point, though I doubt it will change your mind. Not all of Jesus’ disciples deserted Him at the cross. One Apostle was there, John. Also, there were His mother Mary, her sister and Mary Magdalene.

I’m sure Jesus would have been disgusted by what was going on in Rome, what does that have to do with India? Again, if you believe that he was a faithful “prophet” doesn’t it seem likely that he would have done something to stop His “false deification?” Eradicating a false religion based on a misunderstanding of His teachings would have been a on the top of His list of priorities. Not skulking off to India to live happily ever after.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, however, I would be more inclined to trust a source that witnessed the crucifixion, John, who wrote the Gospel of John rather than somebody who came along 18 centuries later! (There is some debate that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel, but rather a disciple of his. I remain unconvinced that he did not write it).

 

[Mr.Bee]

When Jesus died it was recorded he said " Father, why have you forsaken me?"
If Jesus was God why would he say that? If he was God he would have known “heaven” was empty and unattended because he was in human form.

I apologize for being brief and vague, I have a limited knowledge of scripture being impatient in nature, but this is my understanding of this quote.

When Jesus was dying he realized he wasn’t going to heaven right off, but going to hell, (see apostles creed) which frightened him. The gates of Heaven weren’t open yet, he had to go through hell first.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I apologize for being brief and vague, I have a limited knowledge of scripture being impatient in nature, but this is my understanding of this quote.

When Jesus was dying he realized he wasn’t going to heaven right off, but going to hell, (see apostles creed) which frightened him. The gates of Heaven weren’t open yet, he had to go through hell first.

Let’s be clear though. “Hell” as used in the Apostle’s Creed means the “abode of the dead”, those not damned (the spirits in prison). Since the time the Apostle’s Creed was written, the word hell has come to mean something different. Nowadays it is a word which is used to describe “Gehenna” which is a place where God wills not to exist. (more aptly called the abode of the damned). Since Jesus was God Incarnate, He would not have gone to this place.

I’m not sure if Jesus, knowing His identity, necessarily feared going here. What did He have to be afraid of? No, I think He was only quoting Psalm 22.

 

[jimmy]

I have no religion thank very much. If God was in Jesus , heaven was empty; right.
I am here looking for answers to my questions.

False. God is not limited in place or time. God is in all places at all times. He was in both at once. He became incarnate in Jesus Christ in a special way that Jesus could be said to be God though. We Christians say that God is in us too ever since our baptism. Several ancient Christians made the statement that ‘God became man that man might become God.’ This means that God will be in us all uniting us with Himself.

Further, God is Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is the incarnation of the Son.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Let’s be clear though. “Hell” as used in the Apostle’s Creed means the “abode of the dead”, those not damned (the spirits in prison). Since the time the Apostle’s Creed was written, the word hell has come to mean something different. Nowadays it is a word which is used to describe “Gehenna” which is a place where God wills not to exist. (more aptly called the abode of the damned). Since Jesus was God Incarnate, He would not have gone to this place.

I’m not sure if Jesus, knowing His identity, necessarily feared going here. What did He have to be afraid of? No, I think He was only quoting Psalm 22.

I believe you are right about quoting Psalms 22. I’ve heard it other places before. I’ve also have heard that the Jews knew Psalms like we know the Our Father…

All they needed was to hear the first few lines to be able to recite the rest of the passages.

Just like how many of us just need to hear the words “Our Father”. Once we hear those words we can recite the rest of the prayer. Or the first words of the creed "We believe in God…” Once we hear those words we can recite the rest of the creed.

The Jews there knew what Christ was saying and even though Christ never finished reciting the Psalms the Jews there could and knew. They heard Christ say the opening lines and they could recite the rest. Therefore they understood what he was saying… Psalms 22

 

[paarsurrey]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, however, I would be more inclined to trust a source that witnessed the crucifixion, John, who wrote the Gospel of John rather than somebody who came along 18 centuries later! (There is some debate that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel, but rather a disciple of his. I remain unconvinced that he did not write it).

Hi
It is beauty of the peaceful dialogue, that while from both sides different views are expressed, a point does come when each other start understanding the opposite view point however distant they may seem, both sides do benefit in a number of ways.
It is quite OK with me if you remain steadfast on your belief, still you may continue to win me over; that you should know how to do it.
Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

he (Jesus)would have done something to stop His “false deification?” Eradicating a false religion based on a misunderstanding of His teachings would have been a on the top of His list of priorities. Not skulking off to India to live happily ever after.

Hi
Well that is what Jesus did. It was his option, his responsiblity was fixed by GodAllahYHWH of whom he was a humble servant only to find and teach the lost tribes of house of Israel who were settled in India and the neighbourhood. He was not sent to Gentiles of Rome, that is very clear. To me, Jesus did what he was assigned to. Catholics may believe blindly what they are taught by the clergy, no compulsion, but I would form my own opinion being reason-oriented.
Thanks

The problem here with some of my Christian friends is that they don’t let God speak for Himself. If they would have done it they would find a straight passage from the OTBible on every important issue, if Bible is a living book that answers every rational/reasonable/logical questions, of course we are not discussing here pure Mathematics or Physics, and we are mostly concerned with the every day moral, Spiritual and religious issues, and a religious worthwhile book must resolve such issues, if it is truthful to its purpose. When they don’t get support from the Bible, they think they are wiser than God, so they try filling the void by putting words into God’s mouth first for the Claim and then for the Reason which is usually not found there. One is hence left wondering if the Christian God is living and All-Wise.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Well that is what Jesus did.

So you’ve been told, that doesn’t mean it is the truth.

It was his option, his responsiblity was fixed by GodAllahYHWH of whom he was a humble servant only to find and teach the lost tribes of house of Israel who were settled in India and the neighbourhood. He was not sent to Gentiles of Rome, that is very clear.

I can agree that Jesus did the will of God. No one ever said He went to Rome… where do you get these ideas? The historical and biblical evidence says He was crucified in Jerusalem. Even a Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

To me, Jesus did what he was assigned to. Catholics may believe blindly what they are taught by the clergy, no compulsion, but I would form my own opinion being reason-oriented.

Now there’s the pot calling the kettle black! Maybe we all believe blindly, you are just as much an example of that as I am. You have presented no historical proof that Jesus was in India, it is legend only. Find me some documents within 200 years of Jesus’ life that say He went to India. Then we can talk about that. There are non-Christian historical accounts of Jesus being crucified in Jerusalem.

The problem here with some of my Christian friends is that they don’t let God speak for Himself. If they would have done it they would find a straight passage from the OTBible on every important issue, if Bible is a living book that answers every rational/reasonable/logical questions, of course we are not discussing here pure Mathematics or Physics, and we are mostly concerned with the every day moral, Spiritual and religious issues, and a religious worthwhile book must resolve such issues, if it is truthful to its purpose. When they don’t get support from the Bible, they think they are wiser than God, so they try filling the void by putting words into God’s mouth first for the Claim and then for the Reason which is usually not found there. One is hence left wondering if the Christian God is living and All-Wise.

You’ve already made this point. But again you are mistaken. The Bible supports our position. It says nothing about India, I assure you…

 

[paarsurrey]

The historical and biblical evidence says He was crucified in Jerusalem. Even a Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

Hi
No historical facts, just guesses.
Thanks

One should search for truth in the NTBible, but one should not compromise on truth, if it is not found there.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Hi
No historical facts, just guesses.
Thanks

One should search for truth in the NTBible, but one should not compromise on truth, if it is not found there.

My “guesses” are based on ancient documents. These documents say Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. These documents include not only the New Testament but also documents from some non-Christians who lived within a couple hundred years of Jesus.

I await your evidence that Jesus died in India. An ancient document please–something within two or three hundred years. The quran wouldn’t count, because it was written over 600 years after Christ walked the Way of the Cross.

You are right that we should search the NT for the truth, but you are the one who is compromising, because the account of the Crucifixion is found in many passages—including one written by an eyewitness named John.

 

[paarsurrey]

My “guesses” are based on ancient documents.
The account of the Crucifixion is found in many passages—including one written by an eyewitness named John.

Hi
For those who prefer witnessing of the Apostels of the event of Crucifixion, while there were no apostels, in my opinion, present on the scene of the Crucifixion, but some say that John was there. For Gospel of John and its historical value , please access the note :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Since the “higher criticism” of the 19th century, historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus[3][4]. “[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous.”[5]

So, there was none among the Jesus’ twelve apostles present on the scene of Crucifixion, to qualify as an eye witness later. I think the matter is clear now.
Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi everybody!
As the title of the thread suggests, I would say that Jesus died when he had conveyed the message commanded to him by GodAllahYHWH to the lost tribes of the house of Israel scattered in different Asian countries and he died respectfully, peacefully and a natural death in Sirinagar, Kashmir, in India. He could not be killed on the Cross as yet his mission was yet incomplete, and by death by killing he could be confirmed , we take refuge from GodAllahYHWH, a false ProphetMessenger in terms of : Deuteronomy 18:20-22. The text is as follows:
“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
And that is not possible, as Jesus was a true and great ProphetMessenger of God.
I love Jesus and Mary.
Thanks

The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” - rather Jesus was not killed on Cross and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908.

 

[adrift]

Jesus is God and the Messiah, our saviour and redeemer, who warned us about false prophets.

The first and primary source on “Jesus did not die on Cross” - rather Jesus was not killed on Cross and later died naturally is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908.

It has been pointed out that it is not the pristine Word of God because he made many errors that have been pointed out to you and you choose to ignore.