What happened to Jesus of Nazareth?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean, there was no preexisting Jewish tradition that a Messiah would be divine or immune from death. King David is granted the title "Annointed One" (Literally Messiah) and he was neither of those things. He was the powerful and successful king who seized Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Israelite kingdom...which is more or less what the ancient Jews were expecting their Messiah to be: a descendant of David who would seize Jerusalem and the Holy Land and start a new holy Kingdom ruled by the line of David.

Christianity changes the story dramatically because it claims Jesus was not only the Messiah of the Jews, but, more importantly, was the Son of God and, by extension, Savior of all Mankind. To the Christian, Jesus not establishing a kingdom in Israel is irrelevant because he rules over a more important Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus' death is a sign of success, not failure.

It's just worth keeping in mind that that perspective, the Christian one, is very much a flipped script and a radical departure from the traditional concept of what a Messiah would look like (and a massive departure from the idea of what a Messiah would look like that Jews are still waiting for).

This post helps prove my point: If the Muslim Jesus doesn't fit the Jewish definition of the messiah, and he doesn't fit the Christian definition of the messiah, then why do they call him the messiah?

This doesn't really answer the other questions the Muslim account of Jesus raises, but the obvious answer is "because He fits the Muslim definition of the messiah".