What happened to Jesus of Nazareth?

[SingingAnalyst]

I vote option 2. I believe something remarkable happened in CE 30, in early spring, when the moon was three days past full-- both to Jesus himself and in the hearts of his believers--something we cannot quite explain.

I was raised Catholic, and continue to be Catholic, but a number of factors have pushed me (at least temporarily) into the "something remarkable we can't describe" category: (1) the extreme animosity between the Jewish authorities and the "Christians", as evident almost from Day One of the church (at least per the Book of Acts); (2) the prevalence of fundamentalist doctrines, including that of Hell (burning, whipping, worms, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc.).

[Kingpoleon]

The idea of bodily ascension isn't quite the most accurate way of wording it.

[RFayette]

Option 1.  I believe it both by faith and as the best explanation of the events from a historical point of view.

[JA]

"Nothing in particular"

[afleitch]

You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.

[Blue3]

Bodily resurrected... but don't think he physically literally-ascended to heaven.

[7,052,770]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

[RFayette]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

J Warner Wallace addresses this topic in his book Cold Case Christianity.  It's important to recognize that Jesus's treatment prior to crucifixion was far worse than the average prisoner.  John 19:34 documents his being stabbed on the side and water coming out.  This was evidently questioned by early critics of the Gospel accounts, which is why apologists in the early church were unsure about the meaning of this verse, which would only be the case if other crucifixion victims did not have a similar treatment before being hung up on a cross, so it makes sense Jesus would die earlier than others.  Now with modern science and our knowledge of pleural effusion, it provides further testimony to the reliability of the Gospel accounts.

[The Mikado]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

It's certainly hot, but not quite as hot as "Jesus had a lookalike go up on the cross for him and got away," i.e. the Muslim take.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

It's certainly hot, but not quite as hot as "Jesus had a lookalike go up on the cross for him and got away," i.e. the Muslim take.

That's also the take of the good people of Shingō in Aomori Prefecture.

[7,052,770]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

There's no need to be a dick about it. I clearly wasn't trying to be edgy or a know-it-all or whatever you're implying. Just saying what seems likely in my mind.

[RINO Tom]

Option 1.  I believe it both by faith and as the best explanation of the events from a historical point of view.

This is my short answer.  However, given the conclusion I've reached about the nature of God, I think the wording in option 1 is too clunky, bound by the physical world (of which God, by definition, is not), medieval sounding, etc.  So, maybe option 1.5.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

There's no need to be a dick about it. I clearly wasn't trying to be edgy or a know-it-all or whatever you're implying. Just saying what seems likely in my mind.

Normally I see that hypothesis advanced in distinctly edgy contexts. But I shouldn't have made assumptions about your intentions; my apologies.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is a astrophysical plane out there.  And we visit it when we sleep and pernamently when we die. And deceased relatives can visit you in your sleep and give you guidance.

There were bones in a asherary box that had Jesus Son of Joseph on that box.

The archeologist says about that is, that may prove that Jesus was on Earth, but doesn't prove the astrophysical plane theory.

Theology says he resurrected. Inconclusive Evidence

[Mopsus]

You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.

Your post contains another reason for the lack of historical data regarding Jesus the man: If we could "establish Jesus as a historical figure", we would abolish his universal character, and thus make it impossible for him to be the savior of mankind.

Incidentally, my preferred account of Jesus' resurrection is contained in Mark 16:1-8 (ignoring both the shorter and longer endings which follow it).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Resurrection is a theological fact just like I explained in my post when I talk about Jesus' tomb.  And miracles were performed by Moses as well as Jesus.

Jesus and his Disciples insist death is your resurrection and you will enter the astral plane, where you enter when you sleep, as well. And its a pernament state upon death.

[DC Al Fine]

You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.

The argument from silence is a tricky thing one to make. One has to make a compelling case for why a writer ought to have mentioned X. Josephus does twice (I'm aware of the interpolation of one of the passages but most scholars agree there is an authentic core), but then he is writing Jewish history. Why would one expect the writers you listed to mention Jesus in more detail than Josephus did?

The rest of your argument is a mix of presentism and conspiracy theory silliness. Apparently backwater preachers from two thousand years ago just leave reams of documentation for future generations to suppress.

[afleitch]

You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.

The argument from silence is a tricky thing one to make. One has to make a compelling case for why a writer ought to have mentioned X. Josephus does twice (I'm aware of the interpolation of one of the passages but most scholars agree there is an authentic core), but then he is writing Jewish history. Why would one expect the writers you listed to mention Jesus in more detail than Josephus did?

The rest of your argument is a mix of presentism and conspiracy theory silliness. Apparently backwater preachers from two thousand years ago just leave reams of documentation for future generations to suppress.

Do you believe that the early Church retained all historical and
theological works on or referencing Jesus of Nazareth?

[The Mikado]

You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.

The argument from silence is a tricky thing one to make. One has to make a compelling case for why a writer ought to have mentioned X. Josephus does twice (I'm aware of the interpolation of one of the passages but most scholars agree there is an authentic core), but then he is writing Jewish history. Why would one expect the writers you listed to mention Jesus in more detail than Josephus did?

The rest of your argument is a mix of presentism and conspiracy theory silliness. Apparently backwater preachers from two thousand years ago just leave reams of documentation for future generations to suppress.

Do you believe that the early Church retained all historical and
theological works on or referencing Jesus of Nazareth?

Why would any writer outside of the Jewish or Judaean-focused audience care to record anything about a random Eastern holy man who was executed? Outside of Philo of Alexandria, who was in fact a Jew and wrote about Jewish issues, I can't think of any contemporary writer in that era who would have any reason to discuss Jesus. The first disciples were not exactly from scholarly backgrounds and wouldn't have much reason to write (at least until they recruit the learned and talented Paul). Honestly, a better skeptic argument would be wondering when exactly Galilean fisherman St. Peter figured out how to read and write.

[bore]

Simplest possible solution: he wasn't really dead when they took him down for the cross. 9 hours generally wasn't enough to die. The part about the tomb is either artistic license, or maybe they really put him in there to keep up appearances and got him out soon after.

A hot take! The hottest of takes!

Anyway, option 1, although "ascend" obviously shouldn't be taken to mean what it normally does.

It's certainly hot, but not quite as hot as "Jesus had a lookalike go up on the cross for him and got away," i.e. the Muslim take.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It doesn't matter, as I understand astral plane is taught in every religion and mind separates from body, at death(Jehovah Witness theology). And body is a shell.  

It stays in nirvana or reincarnates.

And nirvana can be interpreted to many as heavan

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus ever died on the cross but was saved by God before he could be crucified and will return in the End Times and destroy the Cross of those who distorted his message.

[Mopsus]

As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus ever died on the cross but was saved by God before he could be crucified and will return in the End Times and destroy the Cross of those who distorted his message.

The only account of Jesus's message we have is contained in the gospels, where he insists repeatedly on the necessity of his own death, often citing scripture to support his position. The Muslim position here is untenable.

[FairBol]

I agree with the Apostle's Creed on this....Jesus "ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father".