In article <4j4blf$>, Jochen Katz writes:

| In article <4j3pkn$>, 
|(Ibnu Ar Radi) writes:
| Peace
| I am referring to my last post on "Who is lying?".
| In the article I mentioned "Jesus' twin brother". As we
| know that Jesus do not have a twin brother. The word "twin" was
| used just to describe that the brother who may have the look like 
| Jesus.

I am glad you did not insist on a literal twin.
But I wonder why this "twin" brother didn't protest against his crucifixion.
In fact, he must be a real saint if you read his behavior in the trial, 
scorging, the crucifixion and the words he uttered at the cross. 

This is just another speculation which can only come into existence when
you disregard every detail in the eyewitness accounts first and then -
with a clean sheet - start fantasizing. 

| I quote myself :
| > In its early days though, there were controversies and disagreement
| > amongst them as to what really happened - the Basilidians and the 
| > Carpocratians are example of groups which oppose the idea that Christ
| > was killed. Another theory states that it was Jesus' twin brother who
| > was slain, while he escape.

I have some information on the Basilidians and Carpocratians now. You 
would be real embarrassed if you only knew what they are believing on 
top of the things that you like about them. Do you care at all about 
the "general credibility" of your "witnesses"?

You can read about the Basilidians and Carpocratians in some detail.

And a very short summary from a church history book:

"Basilides, who flourished in Alexandria during Hadrian's reign, was 
inspired by Menander [a major Gnostic figure, who discredited himself]. 
According to Irenaeus, he taught that from the supreme or transcendent God 
"emanated" such things as Mind, Logos, Understanding, Wisdom, and Power. 
These emanations in turn created 365 heavens, the chief and last of which 
was the God of the Jews. Although a lower spiritual being, he tried to put 
mankind in bondage to him. In order to free humanity the transcendent God 
send his "Mind" (Greek "Nous") into the world, and it dwelt in Christ, a man 
who worked miracles. But since he could not suffer, he escaped death by a 
ruse. Simon of Cyrene not only carried his cross but was also mistakenly 
crucified, while the invisible Jesus stood by laughing."

The question to ask is whether YOU view the Basilidians and the Carpocratians 
as authoritative. If so, are you willing to accept their other views as well? 
[more details on the web page] If not, why do you bring them up? And what is 
your basis for accepting one part of their views, while rejecting the other 

You go on

| quoting from The Holy Blood and Holy Grail pg 449:

Another of these (non-science)fiction books - which the authors even admit 
to in their preface, that basically all of it is speculations. Not all 
authors are that honest. But not all readers care about prefaces either.
And it was certainly sensational enough to give it a wide readership [and 
good money]. I admit my memory is a bit hazy. So don't nail me on that 
statement, but that is what I recall of it. And that book is not in my 
personal library.

| "The famous painting "The Last Supper" and the sketch "The Virgin with 
| St John the Baptist and St Anne" by Learnado da Vinci (b 1452) shows
| TWO identical Jesus, indicating that this ancient theory had even reached
| Europe. Certain authorities have ascribed da Vinci of being a believer
| of this theory."
| The above is only a conjecture from the writers, not mine. Infact I
| suggest Mr Jochen Katz eread my article. I believe the article is only
| serve as a fact that so far there are many theories put forward of the
| abrupt end of Jesus' missionary.
| salam

I am glad you at least distanced yourself of *their* CONJECTURE as even
you call it. So not all sense for reality is lost. I am hopeful for you.
But why do you find these speculations so important to propagate anyway?

What is the point of just listing "all aberrant views ever held through 
history" about a certain topic if you then do not say what you believe
yourself and why? I appreciate that you "only listed" and have not said 
you believe this. I would be interested to hear what you really believe
and why. But why do you try to make "the whole topic" very doubtful by 
just listing many opinions on it? Don't you think I can make the issue 
"how the Qur'an came into being" very doubtful if I just list all the 
strange theories that people have brought forward over the centuries -
whether I myself think these speculations are valid or laughable? Without
evaluation of the theories and then saying what I think about it, I hold
this to be purposeful deception, trying to make the impression on people

"because there are so many views (no matter how solid or ridiculous) 
 this shows how little we know and how uncertain it really is".

Because many people have very different and not so favorable opinions
about Muhammad and the Qur'an, would you therefore agree that it is a 
very doubtful and uncertain matter? 

In fact any important event in history which claims consequences for 
today will invariably draw much attention of many people and the more
attention it gets the more theories will spring up on it. Does it mean 
the more important an event is  the less sure we can be about it?

I might completely misinterpret your intentions. 
If so, I want to apologize.
These were just some thoughts on how I see some people approach the topic.

I am interested to know what YOU believe. And then we can debate on
whether your belief is sound or not. I am not really interested to 
debate speculations you don't believe either.

Jochen Katz  

Continue with the next part on the real conclusions we have to draw from all these theories.
Overview on the crucifixion articles.

Answering Islam Home Page