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

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?

So your saying God is so grateful that he would share his Glory with a mere Son of Man and allow all people and nations and tongues to serve this person. 

If you read Isaiah 52:8 God says my glory I give to no other.

Yet hes giving Glory to this Son of Man who sits at his right hand and comes in the clouds.

Yeshua himself asked God to glorify him with the Glory he shared with the Father before the World was.

So unless God is indeed a unity that could not stand because he can not give his glory to a mere man.

Showing this Son of Man has to be divine and in unity with the Father.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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.

I am saying they conducted the trial illegaly and brought Yeshua to Pontius Pilate to have him killed.

No one disagrees with you there. The illegal trial is taught in the gospels.

Is your point to say the jews always have to follow tradition and not disobey? Because I can show you many times in history where jewish people broke tradition or disobeyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?

Im not going to throw away my books just because some places haven't been found yet lol then wed have to throw out the whole torah tanach as well. Thats ludicrious

About Nazareth here's a link about archaeological discoveries about the biblical town of Nazareth. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-home-town-nazareth-archaeological-discovery-research-a9470716.html%3famp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?

Ill be back have to be somewhere but ill tell you about the cup when I return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?

Read Isaiah 51:17 when God forces to drink of the cup it means his wrath and judgement and seperation.

For instance O Jerusalem you have drunk of the cup of the Lords Fury. Gods Judgement was on them. 

Yeshua had to drink of the cup and had to face the Fathers Judgement and Seperation. That's why Yeshua said "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani!!!" He was made an atonement for sin and faced Gods wrath and judgement and was forsaken from the Father which he dreaded but knew he had to drink of it to fulfill scriptures.

There's other verses where God forces the wicked nations to drink of the cup poured out his fury on them but I believe you get the point.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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.

You missed it but I pasted a record from Thallus who was a greek historian and in 52 AD mentioned the Earthquake that rented the rocks and caused many places in Judea and other places to be thrown down. He also described a most fearful darkness which he explained that appeared like an eclipse of the Sun.

This is verified in the gospels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there's info in the journal international geology review which focused on an earthquake activity at the dead sea located 13 miles from Jerusalem.

They place the date Friday April 3, 33 A.D.

Isn't that interesting 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

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.

Hello Ashvazdanghe

John the Baptist was killed by Herod Antipas who was ruler of Galilee under the Roman Empire. He had power under Rome not the Jews.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello @tek91 , Herod Antipas has been king of Jews which Rabbis  have been supporting  him which it's even confirmed  in story of crucifixion  which rabbis have requested from him for killing of prophet  Isa (as)/Jesus which when he has refused to do it then they have requested it from Pontius Pilates which he also refused to do it but under pressure of Rabbis due to their treating causing unrest in Jerusalem & their request  from representative  of Roman emperor he  had to put his soldiers in service of Rabbis & gave them freedom  for execution  which it has mentioned  in your books & sources about story of crucifixion which by calling Herod Antipas as Roman puppet  you have dodged from a fact about martyring prophets by Jew rabbis  even before conquering  Palestine  by Romans which Romans have made a pact with Herod Antipas to recognize  him as king of Jews in order of continuing  his dynasty  which he has inherited  from his forefathers .:book:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, tek91 said:

You missed it but I pasted a record from Thallus who was a greek historian and in 52 AD mentioned the Earthquake that rented the rocks and caused many places in Judea and other places to be thrown down. He also described a most fearful darkness which he explained that appeared like an eclipse of the Sun.

This is verified in the gospels.

 

Thallus is an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about. By no means a reliable independant source in light of the plethora of contemporary historians who did not leave events of such magnitude u recorded. This Thallus is not even first hand testimony. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

It is interesting that Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua had to drink of the cup and had to face the Fathers Judgement and Seperation.

Whichever way one may choose to interpret the passage, and this by no means is the majority view, Jesus did not want to have any of what he was about to endure.

Later trinitarians had to find a way out of that difficulty. They appealed to the notion of Jesus' double nature, his humanity that feared suffering on one side and his divinity that fully embraced the master plan of creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, tek91 said:

About Nazareth here's a link about archaeological discoveries about the biblical town of Nazareth

Nazareth, as depicted in the NT is totally absent from archeology. It is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings.

 

It isn't mentioned in the HB either. The Book of Joshua records 12 towns and 6 villages in that area, but no mention of a "Nazareth". The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns, but again no mention of a "Nazareth." This total silence could be due to the location being an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres, populated by Jews of modest means as recent archaeological finds point to.

 

This however causes major problems to the NT fable. Among many such issues one needs to explain how such a rustic and small clan did not hear of the 12 year old prodigy among them Lk2 and that none from outside of the small town has ever come anywhere near his home to inquire of him. It would then necessarily make the village famous and put it on every map. This young Jesus prodigy did not appear in a vacuum either, considering how the NT speaks of the events forecasting the coming of the highly anticipated messiah as happenning just a few years earlier. How could this small hamlet not have heard anything of the visiting magis, coming from far to worship the promised king Matt2. How could their expensive gifts have gone unnoticed within this clan of poor relatives and close friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, tek91 said:

Is your point to say the jews always have to follow tradition and not disobey?

The point is they had no ability to do it, let alone the authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Thallus is an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about. By no means a reliable independant source in light of the plethora of contemporary historians who did not leave events of such magnitude u recorded. This Thallus is not even first hand testimony. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

It is interesting that Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive.

Lol why would I bother fetching you any more stuff if you'll just make excuses like Thallus is hardly known. This shows me you are not interested in any information that I bring you.

As for Peter the Earthquake wasnt important for salvation the crucifixion and resurrection was. He would speak what is important.

And why would he mention those events to them as if they didnt know about it?

They were alive to witness it.

That's like me randomly saying "hey, look theres a coronavirus pandemic going on."duhhh

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Whichever way one may choose to interpret the passage, and this by no means is the majority view, Jesus did not want to have any of what he was about to endure.

Later trinitarians had to find a way out of that difficulty. They appealed to the notion of Jesus' double nature, his humanity that feared suffering on one side and his divinity that fully embraced the master plan of creation.

I showed you what Yeshua was dreading drinking the CUP of Gods wrath. Yeshua did not say take this death away or these Roman Soldiers. Yeshua said take this CUP away. So I showed you through Torah/Tanach what the cup represent...

Read John 18:11 When Peter cut off the ear of the soldier. Jesus stopped him and what did he say?

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Yeshua dreaded being forsaken of the Father and facing his wrath as that is the worst possible thing imaginable.

Every christian would tell you Gods wrath was on Yeshua as he was the Sacrificial lamb and was punished and Forsaken for taking the Sin of the World.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Nazareth, as depicted in the NT is totally absent from archeology. It is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings.

I just showed you Archaeologist discoveries about the biblical Town of Nazareth.  

As for your objection on the Nazarene prophecy here is a great explanation.

https://www.***.org/BibleCom/mt2-23.html

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

This however causes major problems to the NT fable

Please dont call my book a fable that's disrespectful.

If you want to talk about fable lets talk about how quran says Solomon heard a conversation between ants which is scientifically impossible except in a Pixar movie.

Ants communicate through smell not verbally.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The point is they had no ability to do it, let alone the authority.

Im telling you that yes they committed illegal acts by bringing Yeshua. The trial was illegal yet they did it anyway because they hated Yeshua and believed that he was a threat and committed blasphemy that they were willing to do anything they could to get him killed. That's why they delivered him to Herod and finally to Pontius Pilate by which the death sentence was met.

This is all taught in the gospels.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, tek91 said:

why would I bother fetching you any more stuff

A claimant is expected to bring forth evidence for his story. The greater the claim the more accurate the proof must be. Merely throwing testimonies doesnt constitute proof. The evidence must first be objectively assessed.

The writing attributed to Thallus fails for the many reasons listed.

Please bring proof corroborating all or one of the supernatural and cataclysmic events that accompanied Jesus' crucifixion.

1 hour ago, tek91 said:

And why would he mention those events to them as if they didnt know about it?

Because he was speaking to a skeptical audience in need of such convincing evidence allegedly witnessed by hundreds that were still alive at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
57 minutes ago, tek91 said:

the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

He shall drink it if it be the Father's will, as he states later. That is not the point.

When he prostrates with his forehead to the ground, he expresses what would be the outcome if it was only up to him, independantly of the Father's will. But he then submits his will to the Father's "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
50 minutes ago, tek91 said:

I just showed you Archaeologist discoveries about the biblical Town of Nazareth.  

Yes, discoveries that undermine the NT story.

52 minutes ago, tek91 said:

As for your objection on the Nazarene prophecy

It surely is a failed attempt by Matthew's writer to make Jesus' birth fulfill an inexistent prophecy of the HB. But that issue was not mentionned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Im telling you that yes they committed illegal acts by bringing Yeshua.

That is not the point. One may have authority to do something while lacking the power, or viceversa.

The Jews here were under Roman dominion. They had neither power nor legal authority to do what is alleged they have done in their non existent Sanhedrin at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nad_M said:

He shall drink it if it be the Father's will, as he states later. That is not the point.

When he prostrates with his forehead to the ground, he expresses what would be the outcome if it was only up to him, independantly of the Father's will. But he then submits his will to the Father's "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Yes he willingly agrees to drink of the cup of the Father so you agree.

Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of a soldier. Yeshua stopped him and basically explained to Peter that he must drink of the cup and fulfill Gods will to atone for sin and in so doing enduring Gods wrath and being forsaken.

Yeshua then said to Peter if he wanted to at any time he could pray to the Father and would get legions of angels to take him away from the circumstance.  At anytime he could stop it but if he did he would be disobeying the Father because this is his will.

Yeshua was obedient and had to willingly die on the cross for atonement of sin.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nad_M said:

surely is a failed attempt by Matthew's writer to make Jesus' birth fulfill an inexistent prophecy of the HB. But that issue was not mentionned.

Did you read the link I showed you? Also it wasnt prophet it was prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nad_M said:

That is not the point. One may have authority to do something while lacking the power, or viceversa.

The Jews here were under Roman dominion. They had neither power nor legal authority to do what is alleged they have done in their non existent Sanhedrin at the time.

What is it you are trying to say ? Be specific are you saying the Jews could not disobey the Roman and had to be good little boys? Are you saying they could not kill anyone? Because they didnt they handed him to Pilate.

Are you saying they could not take him to the jewish tribunal and ruling body the jewish basilica?

Can you provide evidence the sanhedrin did not exist at the time of Yeshuas trial.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure. Do you know the meaning of the Arabic qawl?

Please go there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/03/cira-international-debunk-quran-solomon.html?m=1

Did you read what you sent me about qwal?

Communicating any way possible and not necessarily through sound waves.

Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."So [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech, and said, "My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do righteousness of which You approve. And admit me by Your mercy into [the ranks of] Your righteous servants."

First the text explicitly state the ants were using verbal speech from solomons own mouth. This is impossible as ants communicate or sound waves are through chemicals detected by scent and not sound. If the ants do produce any sounds its through monotone and does not convey meaning.

Ants dont talk and cannot produce speech.

Ants also are simple so their brains contain around 250,000 neurons compared to the billions by humans. Meaning its impossible for them to have the cereblum to function thought or thinking.

This means they cannot communicate verbally or have any sort of knowledge especially knowing who this solomon person is or his soldiers lol and calling him specifically by name......

I should go to the park and listen to them maybe they can teach me physics lol

Scientifically impossible for this to happen and you trying to prove eitherwise is too funny :)

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

claimant is expected to bring forth evidence for his story. The greater the claim the more accurate the proof must be. Merely throwing testimonies doesnt constitute proof. The evidence must first be objectively assessed.

The writing attributed to Thallus fails for the many reasons listed.

Please bring proof corroborating all or one of the supernatural and cataclysmic events that accompanied Jesus' crucifixion.

Thallus is not an unknown ghost he was a well known Samaritan and a historian who wrote three volume history of the Mediterranean world from before the Trojan Wars. 

You also have to take into account that Jerusalem was ravaged throughout history by war and destruction and many historical accounts were most likely destroyed so to show the history I have shown you is a miracle by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Because he was speaking to a skeptical audience in need of such convincing evidence allegedly witnessed by hundreds that were still alive at the time.

They were not skeptical they lived through the Earthquake so they didn't need convincing of it and did not need Peter to tell them about it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hello @tek91 , Herod Antipas has been king of Jews which Rabbis  have been supporting  him which it's even confirmed  in story of crucifixion  which rabbis have requested from him for killing of prophet  Isa (as)/Jesus which when he has refused to do it then they have requested it from Pontius Pilates which he also refused to do it but under pressure of Rabbis due to their treating causing unrest in Jerusalem & their request  from representative  of Roman emperor he  had to put his soldiers in service of Rabbis & gave them freedom  for execution  which it has mentioned  in your books & sources about story of crucifixion which by calling Herod Antipas as Roman puppet  you have dodged from a fact about martyring prophets by Jew rabbis  even before conquering  Palestine  by Romans which Romans have made a pact with Herod Antipas to recognize  him as king of Jews in order of continuing  his dynasty  which he has inherited  from his forefathers .:book:

Yea Herod was jewish but he was l under Rome so he could order a death at anytime. As for Jesus Herod did not care to much about him. He was interested to meet him because he heard of his miracles and was hoping to see one.

When the Jews brought him he had no care to put him to death so basically told the Jews to bring him back to Pontius Pilate.

The High Priest on the other hand wanted Jesus dead and he represented the Jews and had no power under Rome to put any person to death.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Yes he willingly agrees to drink of the cup of the Father so you agree.

No. He rather submits his will to his Father's. "Not my will but yours be done".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

First the text explicitly state the ants were using verbal speech

This is a translation. Qawl is not limited to that interpretation

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...