Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why did the High Priest tear his garment?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In Matthew 14:61 The High Priest Caiaphas asked Yeshua are you the Son of the Blessed. (meaning Son Of God) Jesus responds I AM (which is the name God told Moses to say to Pharaoh who God is. I AM sent you) 

That's not all then Yeshua proceeds to say "and you shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven"

The Jews knew exactly what that meant. that is saying he has authority with God to sit on his right hand in God's Throne.. Yeshua did not say he was standing which could represent any prophet but sitting on God's right hand..

Yeshua describes himself as the Son of Man coming in the clouds referencing Daniel.

Who is this Son of Man which comes in the clouds with power?

Daniel said he saw in a night vision one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven. and came to the Ancient of Days..

AND THERE WAS GIVEN HIM DOMINION, AND GLORY, AND A KINGDOM, THAT ALL PEOPLE, NATIONS, AND LANGUAGES , SHOULD SERVE HIM HIS DOMINION WHICH SHALL NOT PASS AWAY AND HIS KINGDOM THAT WHICH SHALL NOT BE DESTROYED...

Why are all these things that belong to God given to this Son of Man in the clouds??? 

What did the High Priest do after Yeshua said that?

 Then the High priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy.

The High Priest knew exactly what Yeshua was saying..

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

If Jesus had a Hebrew name no one knows what it might have been since there are no early NT writings with his Hebrew name. The Greek Iesous cannot iterate into the Hebrew Yeshua. The closest transliteration of Iesous is Yeshu, and for Yeshua would be Iesouas. The reason for the Christian need to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of their attempt at connecting it with a noun that they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".
 
We find this pattern of morphing a name for theological reasons in other cases. For example Jesus' brother is called James. One of the 27 books of the NT was supposedly authored by him. It was opposed by many Christians, including Martin Luther due to its different Christology than Paul's writings, emphasizing the necessity of deeds for salvation. James was part of the small nucleus of Jewish followers of Jesus, centered around Jerusalem, who were in conflict with Paul and who advocated full Torah observance even after Jesus' crucifixion. James' name is in fact, in the original Greek, Jacob. In an effort to erradicate the Jewishness of that movement, the church, in all non-Greek translations of the name have changed Jacob to James.
 
On 10/9/2021 at 6:27 PM, tek91 said:

Why are all these things that belong to God given to this Son of Man in the clouds??? 

Jesus had no dominion over those things until they were given to him?

On 10/9/2021 at 6:27 PM, tek91 said:

What did the High Priest do after Yeshua said that?

The Quran categorically denies that Jesus' enemies had any power over him. He was honored and taken to Allah prior to the arrest.

Historically, the retrospective story telling of the gospels writers holds no waters. This is because Jews at that time didn't have any authority to try him for a death penalty:

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a). Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty (According to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13) around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

 

If Jesus had a Hebrew name no one knows what it might have been since there are no early NT writings with his Hebrew name. The Greek Iesous cannot iterate into the Hebrew Yeshua. The closest transliteration of Iesous is Yeshu, and for Yeshua would be Iesouas. The reason for the Christian need to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of their attempt at connecting it with a noun that they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".
 
We find this pattern of morphing a name for theological reasons in other cases. For example Jesus' brother is called James. One of the 27 books of the NT was supposedly authored by him. It was opposed by many Christians, including Martin Luther due to its different Christology than Paul's writings, emphasizing the necessity of deeds for salvation. James was part of the small nucleus of Jewish followers of Jesus, centered around Jerusalem, who were in conflict with Paul and who advocated full Torah observance even after Jesus' crucifixion. James' name is in fact, in the original Greek, Jacob. In an effort to erradicate the Jewishness of that movement, the church, in all non-Greek translations of the name have changed Jacob to James.

Hello Nad_M

Its nice to meet you and that is very interesting.

From my understanding Yeshua is an abbreviation and a different form of the hebraic name Yehoshua which in English is Joshua which in greek came to Iesous which then in english became Jesus.

יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ (Yehoshua) -- "the LORD is salvation," 
Ἰησοῦς (Iésous) -- Jesus or Joshua

its always great understanding your pov..

I have been fascinated as to why in arabic he is called Isa? I always thought the arabic name would be Yesu..

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jesus had no dominion over those things until they were given to him?

From our scriptures it is shown that he had glory with God before the World was from Yeshuas own mouth.

Basically he emptied himself to come down from heaven.

Another thing I would like you to answer is why would God give those things to a Son of Man as spoken in Daniel?

Also, why would a mere mortal SIT on the right hand of God as Daniel speak and as Jesus himself speak on many occassions?

This is just one occassion in Luke

But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

Yeshua confirms many times that he is that Son of Man in the clouds in which prophet Daniel spoke off.

very very interesting....

I would like your input as to what that means to you to sit at the right hand of the power of God..

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Quran categorically denies that Jesus' enemies had any power over him. He was honored and taken to Allah prior to the arrest.

We do agree in one thing that Yeshuas enemies had no power over him. What we believe is that Yeshua chose to die for our sin.

What did Jesus tell Peter when Peter took out a sword and cut a soldier of the High Priest ear in Matthew? 

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Basically Jesus was saying to them this has to happen to me to fulfill scriptures if I wanted to I could put a stop to it at any time..

This is confirmed in the many times Yeshua prophecied that he was going to be killed and rise on the third day...

Think of it like this

God in heaven using evil for the purpose of good.

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a). Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty (According to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13) around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple

From my understanding of scriptures we do agree with you that the Jews at that time had no power to put any man to death and that they illegally brought Yeshua to trial and that Yeshua was not given a fair trial out of jealousy and envy. The High Priest used false witnesses and the trial was at night as you said.

Even Jesus attest to it he asked them "why did they come with swords and clubs as if he was a dangerous revolutionary, why didnt they arrest him in the temple as he was there every day. "

Also read on Nicodemus who was a pharisee and a member of the sanhedrin and a follower in secret he tried to tell his jewish colleagues that it was illegal and that according to law a person is required to be heard before being judged. They answered him are you also a galilee out of galilee arises no prophet. John 7:50 

You are correct the Jews could not kill Yeshua and that is why they took him to Pontius Pilate.

You should know from history how people and government and churches and sanhedrins could easily become corrupt.

You wont get any argument from us this trial was indeed illegal.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua is an abbreviation and a different form of the hebraic name Yehoshua

These are different words with different roots.

Isa is the Arabicised version of the native name of the one whom the Greek NT calls  Iesou/Jesus. As already said, If Jesus had a Hebrew name no one knows what it might have been since there are no early NT writings with his Hebrew name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, tek91 said:

We do agree in one thing that Yeshuas enemies had no power over him. What we believe is that Yeshua chose to die for our sin.

That is not what transpires from a careful reading of the NT, where Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times in a prayer to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners.

That "hesitation" cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him.  The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33. This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, tek91 said:

we do agree with you that the Jews at that time had no power to put any man to death and that they illegally brought Yeshua to trial

The question thus remains. If they had no power to do it, how could they have done it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, tek91 said:

Nicodemus who was a pharisee and a member of the sanhedrin and a follower in secret

 

According to the NT Jesus' followers never approached the dead body and could not therefore burry it. That is why Paul says that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies yet Jn19:38, which was written after Acts, speaks of 2 elements among those who burried Jesus -Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus- as being secret followers of his. This obvious manipulation with the burial party being turned from hostile to favorable and positive is an effort to first of all circumvent the difficulty of having Jesus' body dumped in an unmarked pit as would have been done by his executioners, and second find reliable witnesses to the event.

 

These invented characters would have then "faithfully" transmitted their testimony to their brothers in faith and Gospel writers, without being noticed.

 

How strange is it that Joseph of "Arimathaea" (a mysterious and unknown "city of the Jews" Lk23:51) was a Jesus disciple Matt27 yet he is unheard of until the very end. He is a convenient hybrid to the whole plot; close enough to the Jewish elite to avoid suspicion so that he may approach the body, but yet a closet Christian. HE is a "honourable member of the Jewish council, also waiting for the kingdom of God". Regardless, this Joseph was needed to rescue Jesus' body.

 

Similarily this Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews" was allegedly attracted to Jesus because of his miracles (plural) yet besides the "water to wine" one, Jesus' hadnt yet performed any miracle, did not begin his ministry. Yet to add to the confusion Jn2:24 states many miracles were performed only to later claim that a healing he performed in Capernaum was only his second miracle Jn4:54.

There is a reason why the Quran in 4:157-158 states that those who differ on what is stated in the verse about Jesus not having being killed are in shakkin/suspicion about that very statement. It then goes on to say why Christians entertain shakkin/suspicion about the Quranic statement that Jesus was not killed: they have formed a wrong conclusion about events that they themselves had no knowledge about and are following nothing but a conjecture, started by those Bani Israel contemporaries and enemies of Jesus. Some claimed to have killed him and others that they crucified him yet they had no body to prove their lies, no trace of Jesus was ever found. This devastating defeat was retrospectively written as a divinely planned victory since before the universe's creation. IT was then put in writing by several unknown authors whom nobody knows, who attributed their works to Jesus' close disciples yet these disciples are reported to have fled the scene at Jesus' arrest. Add to this the fact that not even a single historian exists, attesting to the wonderful and cataclysmic events surrounding the crucifiction that were allegedly witnessed by an entire city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, tek91 said:

why would God give those things to a Son of Man

The same way God grants whichever favors He wills upon anyone or group of persons as he deems fit.

But the question remains, did Jesus not own the things that were eventually given to him? The idea of emtying himself doesnt solve the issue. God gives up some of his dominion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

is not what transpires from a careful reading of the NT, where Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times in a prayer to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners.

That "hesitation" cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him.  The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33. This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. 

Yeshua does not fear death and try to avoid it. Did you read the verse you quoted.

Yeshua said If you are willing take this CUP from me.

Tell me through Torah and Tanach what does the cup represent?

Then Yeshua procedes to say but not MY WILL BUT YOUR WILL BE DONE 

meaning he had to fulfill Gods will.

The answer you get for this question also answers matt 26:38

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The question thus remains. If they had no power to do it, how could they have done it?

Jesus was executed by the Roman Soldiers under the order of the governor of judea Pontius Pilate who was influenced by the Jews who brought him.

I was under the assumption that you understood this.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

According to the NT Jesus' followers never approached the dead body and could not therefore burry it. That is why Paul says that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies yet Jn19:38, which was written after Acts, speaks of 2 elements among those who burried Jesus -Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus- as being secret followers of his. This obvious manipulation with the burial party being turned from hostile to favorable and positive is an effort to first of all circumvent the difficulty of having Jesus' body dumped in an unmarked pit as would have been done by his executioners, and second find reliable witnesses to the event.

From my understanding of scriptures Yeshua was burried in a rich grave of Joseph of Arithmathea. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Joseph of Arithmathea was a well known and wealthy man of that time. Think of him as a kinda Trump figure.

As for scriptures there is plenty of evidence of people Jesus knew including his own mother being present at his crucifixion as well as his disciples visiting his grave. No one would argue that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Similarily this Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews" was allegedly attracted to Jesus because of his miracles (plural) yet besides the "water to wine" one, Jesus' hadnt yet performed any miracle, did not begin his ministry. Yet to add to the confusion Jn2:24 states many miracles were performed only to later claim that a healing he performed in Capernaum was only his second miracle Jn4:54.

Do you understand that the gospel of Jesus is a historical account meaning that John mentioned Jesus first miracle but was in acknowledgement of all his miracles.

You do know that John wasnt following Jesus around and recording right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

a single historian exists, attesting to the wonderful and cataclysmic events surrounding the crucifiction that were allegedly witnessed by an entire city. 

Are you sure about this ? 

Do you want me to show you the writings of Josephus and others?

There certainly were other outside biblical sources who points to Jesus death and how his followers believed him to be God.

Theres also outside sources of enemies of Jesus who acknowledged his miracles but saw them as sorcery.

I would be more than happy to provide if you wish.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua does not fear death and try to avoid it. Did you read the verse you quoted

Yes, he is looking for a way to escape those that want to kill him. But wasnt it the masterplan since creation?

27 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua said If you are willing take this CUP from me.

Tell me through Torah and Tanach what does the cup represent?

The direct context of that expression defines it. Jesus' will is to take the cup away from him. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Jesus was executed by the Roman Soldiers

That is not the point. If historically the Jews had neither power nor authority to bring him to trial, how could they have done it as per the NT account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Joseph of Arithmathea was a well known and wealthy man of that time.

Where is the town of Arimathaea from where that famous figure springs up suddenly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The same way God grants whichever favors He wills upon anyone or group of persons as he deems fit.

But the question remains, did Jesus not own the things that were eventually given to him? The idea of emtying himself doesnt solve the issue. God gives up some of his dominion?

Read again what is given to The Son of Man in the book of Daniel.

I am not sure you read it right.

Now I ask you again would God give those things to a mere mortal?

As for Jesus owning those things before absolutely.

Read phil 2:5-8. Yeshua being in the form of God did not consider it roberry to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation taking the form of bond servant and coming in the likeness of man.

I have more ill look for it later as I have to be somewhere at 4. Ill be back and answer more for you later on.

Peace

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Do you want me to show you the writings of Josephus and others?

Sure. Which historian of the time attests to the cataclysmic and supernatural (earthquakes, dead coming to life etc) events surrounding Jesus' alleged death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Now I ask you again would God give those things to a mere mortal?

That is not the point. Which God increases in dominion?

And Please dont forget answering the following:

The idea of emptying himself doesnt solve the issue. God gives up some of his dominion?

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes, he is looking for a way to escape those that want to kill him. But wasnt it the masterplan since creation?

The direct context of that expression defines it. Jesus' will is to take the cup away from him. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup or not.

Again I ask you the KEY word is CUP. Jesus was asking if it's Gods will to take this CUP away.

The Cup was what Jesus was asking to be removed only if possible.

You are a smart person what did that CUP represented in the OT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

 

That does not justify the anachronisms

John recording factual events and saying that on this day was his first miracle or in this day was his second and earlier saying that Jesus performed many miracles throughout his ministry is perfectly valid as historical narration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure. Which historian of the time attests to the cataclysmic and supernatural (earthquakes, dead coming to life etc) events surrounding Jesus' alleged death?

Your not going to find everything that happened as you do know that records were destroyed when Nero sieged Jerusalem.

But here are some records

The one by Pliny the Younger is very interesting as it shows how the early believers saw him as God.

Tacticus 

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.

Pliny the Younger 

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

Josephus

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared

The Babylonian Talmud

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.

Lucian

The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Thallus 52 AD

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

That is not the point. Which God increases in dominion?

Why are you trying to dodge the question ????

Why would God give those things to a mere son of man?

AND THERE WAS GIVEN HIM DOMINION, AND GLORY, AND A KINGDOM, THAT ALL PEOPLE, NATIONS, AND LANGUAGES , SHOULD SERVE HIM HIS DOMINION WHICH SHALL NOT PASS AWAY AND HIS KINGDOM THAT WHICH SHALL NOT BE DESTROYED...

God gave this Son of Man Dominion, Glory and that ALL people, nations and languages should serve him.

Wow all this to a Son of Man in the clouds.

Also you did not answer what does sitting at the right hand of God in power represent?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

That is not the point. If historically the Jews had neither power nor authority to bring him to trial, how could they have done it as per the NT account?

I told you the trial was illegal and since the Jews did not have the power to execute they went to the Romans who did.

John 18:29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Where is the town of Arimathaea from where that famous figure springs up suddenly

The location is uncertain as of now but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

1 Jerusalem was sieged in 70 AD

2 there plenty of scriptural places that were later discovered by Archeologists to exist like the town of Emmaus, Sodom and the town of Dalmanutha described in the book of Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, tek91 said:

Theres also outside sources of enemies of Jesus who acknowledged his miracles but saw them as sorcery.

Hi , It has happened about all prophets even prophet Muhammad (pbu) which his enemies have called him sorcerer , liar , crazy & etc.

3 hours ago, tek91 said:

The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

The Jews have killed & beheaded prophet John the baptist (عليه السلام) also they have killed many messengers & prophets (عليه السلام) which their justification about not killing prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) has based on avoiding consequences in contrast to case of martyring of  prophet John the baptist (عليه السلام) which has caused great misfortune  for Jews.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Yahya_(a)

5 hours ago, tek91 said:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Thallus 52 AD

worshiping  of Jesus is a man made tradition  under influence  of cursed Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

I ask you the KEY word is CUP

The context of its use determines it. He refers to the cup of suffering he was about to endure. See Matt20.

Why is Jesus not fully accepting his ordeal, and is consistently looking for a way to escape those that want to kill him. Wasnt it the masterplan since creation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

John recording factual events and saying that on this day was his first miracle or in this day was his second and earlier saying that Jesus performed many miracles throughout his ministry is perfectly valid as historical narration.

That is besides the point. The author confuses his chronology by reporting events in specific times in Jesus' life that had not occured yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

But here are some records

These disputed records (especially the fabricated one attributed to Josephus) do not answer the question.

The gospels relates some cataclysmic events that no historian in and around palestine could have missed.

 It so happens that we do have the records of such contemporary historians, all of them omitting these occurrences. Let us take the example of the earthquake when Jesus was crucified.

Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early to fit the NT tale) and again in 110 CE (too late).

Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Why would God give those things to a mere son of man?

As already said, God grants whichever favors He wills upon anyone or group of persons as he deems fit, without making the entity divine.

Nobody denies what those passages say, what is being repeatedly pointed and unanswered until now is the implication of a particular interpretation of those passages.

Please answer the following;

Which God increases in dominion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

I told you the trial was illegal and since the Jews did not have the power to execute they went to the Romans who did.

That is not the point. Prior to the alleged trial at a Roman court, he was brought to the Sanhedrin. Historically, this Jewish institution was dissolved at the time and the priests had no power to arrest and question an individual as allegedly occured between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

The location is uncertain as of now but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sure, one or 2 obscure locations mentioned in an ancient story doesnt preclude it existed. The problem however with the NT narrative is that one repeatedly encounters such problems leading one to naturally suspect the whole thing as a pious forgery.

For example, where is Jesus' supposed hometown of Nazareth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...