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

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Thallus is not an unknown ghost

Nothing is known of him and his lost work except through 2nd hand Christian apologetic texts at best.

 

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

many historical accounts were most likely destroyed

The works of the major historians of the period have come down to us preserved in greater parts.

None of them speak of the grandiose events of their days related in the gospels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Did you read the link I showed you?

Yes and it does not solve the problem Matthew creates by trying to invent a non existent HB prophecy.

He refers to a supposed prophecy made in the Hebrew Bible about the Messiah being called a Nazarene, yet such prophecy is inexistant. The Greek, "Nazoraios" is because he lived in Nazareth (Greek, "Nazaret"). It has nothing to do with netser, natsar, or nazir as some Christians speculate to overcome this problem, in reference to the description of the Messiah in Isa11:1 as a netser/shoot, i.e. a new growth from the Davidic line. Also Isa11:1 doesnt say the messiah will actually be called netser.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, tek91 said:

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

Exactly. They never did anything of the sort ever since their legal institution was dissolved.

The reason simply is that, as already shown, their ruling in regards to things like the death penalty would be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

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.

One first needs proving the earthquake occured to propose the premise that they "Lived through the earthquake".

It was a disbelieving audience (that strangely still was skeptical despite the resurrected zombies walking around Jerusalem's streets following the crucifixion) which Peter had to convince of Jesus' universal design that culminated through his suicide. Yet he fails mentioning the miracles that occured on that very day?

Why dont the 500 witnesses ever testify to those events?

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

One first needs proving the earthquake occured to propose the premise that they "Lived through the earthquake".

It was a disbelieving audience (that strangely still was skeptical despite the resurrected zombies walking around Jerusalem's streets following the crucifixion) which Peter had to convince of Jesus' universal design that culminated through his suicide. Yet he fails mentioning the miracles that occured on that very day?

Why dont the 500 witnesses ever testify to those events?

It is important to add that in Acts2, Peter, speaking to the disbelieving audience mocking the erratic drunk-like behavior of Jesus' followers, does appeal to the miracles Jesus performed in his lifetime so as to strengthen his arguments. These miracles were, according to Peter done by God through Jesus (ie with God's authority as the Quran states) and were all witnessed by that audience "as you yourselves know". 

So to Peter, it certainly was necessary to remind his skeptical audience of the miracles that marked Jesus' life, even though they had witnessed them and knew about them.

Yet when Peter alludes to the crucifixion and resurrection, he says nothing of the supernatural and cataclysmic events they had previously witnessed according to the Christian apologist in this discussion, so as to enhance his claims for the divine necessity of Jesus' suicide. He instead refers back to prophecies of the HB.

Peter, just like Paul and all of contemporary secular historical records ommit those events because they never occured.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/11/2021 at 6:19 PM, 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.
 

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

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

 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty.

Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic commandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight?

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians (Pontius Pilate, otherwise known historically for his iron rule and violent repression, was even raised to sainthood), were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death. Rather it was the Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide.. 

The Quran puts a stop to this conjecture  "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

In the words of Jesus when he stated that the "paraclete" "will testify about me..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

. He rather submits his will to his Father's. "Not my will but yours be done".

He doesn't submit Jesus wasnt a slave he had a personal relationship with his Father. No where is the word submit used.

In any case he did God's will you agree right?

So for him to get off the cross and not drink of the cup would be disobedience to God.

Do you agree?

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Did you read what I wrote you?

The argument has been falsified through many archaeological discoveries which clearly show Nazareth was a town inhabited in the time of Jesus.

Tombs with fragments of ossuaries have been escavated showing a Jewish presence there in the first century.

There's also a first century courtyard house discovered.

Hellenistic and early Roman artifacts including potteryshards, a cooking jar and lamps discovered in 1969 Nazareth dating from the first century.

They also discovered in 1997 and 1998 excavations at Mary's Well, which is an ancient spring in Nazareth.

In 2009 a first century dwelling was discovered in which pettery and chalk stone which date to late Hellenic through early Roman periods.

Then they also found another courtyard in 2015 which noted early evidence of early christian veneration at the site which suggest it could have been Jesus childhood home.

Here's Some links

 http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

2 https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2013/06/nazareth-in-the-first-century.html

4 Geisler, N. L. (2013). The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House. Pg. 319.

5 Geisler, N. L. (2013). The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House. Pg. 320.

6http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as

7 https://www.cleveland.com/religion/index.ssf/2009/12/archaelogists_in_nazareth_say.html

8 https://www.livescience.com/49941-jesus-home-photos.html

9  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/has-the-childhood-home-of-jesus-been-found/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of argument even if some places have not been found I believe by faith that in time those places will be discovered.

You should know about faith because as a Muslim you believe the moon is broken in half and that ants have intelligent conversations between themselves.

Which are scientific impossibilities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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

Show me where thats not written every quran says the ants spoke to each other.

O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."So [Solomon

ants cannot have intelligent conversations with each other they do not have the brain capacity to know a person named Solomon and his Soldiers.

They cannot understand that with their 250,000 neutrons.

Would you agree its illogical and scientifically impossible?

If not may I ask you if you believe in Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus as well?

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Nothing is known of him and his lost work except through 2nd hand Christian apologetic texts at best.

I told you Thallus is an early greek samaritan historian who wrote a three volume history of the Mediterranean World before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad 112 - 108 BC

His work was quoted by Theophilus of Antioch and Sextus Julius Africanus.

Most Schollars date his writing to 50 AD meaning he would have been alive to witness the Earthquake.

You say nothing is known that's not true.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes and it does not solve the problem Matthew creates by trying to invent a non existent HB prophecy.

He refers to a supposed prophecy made in the Hebrew Bible about the Messiah being called a Nazarene, yet such prophecy is inexistant. The Greek, "Nazoraios" is because he lived in Nazareth (Greek, "Nazaret"). It has nothing to do with netser, natsar, or nazir as some Christians speculate to overcome this problem, in reference to the description of the Messiah in Isa11:1 as a netser/shoot, i.e. a new growth from the Davidic line. Also Isa11:1 doesnt say the messiah will actually be called netser.

Isaiah 11:1 says NZR and since hebrew is written with only consonants it contains the same consonants as Nazareth. So the Prophecy could have certainly been referring to Isaiah 11:1 as Yeshua is the branch.

I would also advise you to go to the link below as it has many explanations of the Nazarene prophecy.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Exactly. They never did anything of the sort ever since their legal institution was dissolved.

The reason simply is that, as already shown, their ruling in regards to things like the death penalty would be irrelevant.

Where is your evidence that they were not permitted to consult in the sanhedrin in 33 AD? And I do mean Consult because they did not impose any actions.

Consulting was not illegal.

It was the Romans who did the executing.

Also where is your evidence that the Sanhedrin was not existant in 33 AD

Their ruling was irrevelant in execution only the ruling of the Romans mattered.

Thats why they were trying to convince Pontius Pilate to kill Yeshuah.

They did not have any power. The only power was relied by Rome.

If the jews had power they would have killed Yeshua themselves.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

One first needs proving the earthquake occured to propose the premise that they "Lived through the earthquake".

It was a disbelieving audience (that strangely still was skeptical despite the resurrected zombies walking around Jerusalem's streets following the crucifixion) which Peter had to convince of Jesus' universal design that culminated through his suicide. Yet he fails mentioning the miracles that occured on that very day?

Why dont the 500 witnesses ever testify to those events?

That doesn't make sense they all witnessed the Earthquake as they were alive....

Everytime I debate with you do I have to mention the covid pandemic and 911?

Did you know that happened?

Why would Peter have to remind people who were alive and experienced the Earthquake that and Earthquake happened lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nad M also read this 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus-crucifixion-reflected-in-soil-deposition/

A Geological Study May Indicate Earthquake Described by Matthew

. A new study of cores and seismic activity near the Dead Sea in the latest issue of International Geology Review* may provide scientific data relating to the event described in Matthew 27. Moreover, a recent report by Discovery News suggested** that the new research on sediment disturbances can be combined with Biblical, astronomical and calendrical information to give a precise date of the crucifixion: Friday, April 3rd, 33 C.E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

He doesn't submit Jesus wasnt a slave he had a personal relationship with his Father. No where is the word submit used.

One who gives up his own will to another, as Jesus does her, is in submission

 

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

In any case he did God's will you agree right?

Yes, against his own

"not my will but yours be done"

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

So for him to get off the cross and not drink of the cup would be disobedience to God.

Do you agree?

The ordeal had not yet begun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Show me where thats not written every quran says the ants spoke to each other.

The Arabic qawl does not necessarily entail verbal speech. See the clear explanation there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/03/cira-international-debunk-quran-solomon.html?m=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

His work was quoted by Theophilus of Antioch and Sextus Julius Africanus.

His work has disappeared and partially shows up in Christian apologists texts. Zero reliability.

Next to that we have the preserved works of several known historians of the time. Unsurprisingly, just like Peter and Paul, none of them mention those events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

Why would Peter have to remind people who were alive and experienced the Earthquake that and Earthquake happened

The same way he reminds them of the miracles Jesus did in front of their eyes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Isaiah 11:1 says NZR

Yes a netser/shoot, i.e. a new growth from the Davidic line as is clear in context. Nothing to do with Nazairos in reference to Jesus' hometown and neither does Isaiah11 state he will be called netser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Consulting was not illegal.

That is not what they supposedly did with Jesus. It was a trial for blasphemy. The consequences of such a move must have been worth it, as explained previously. Yet they knew their efforts would be useless and illegal in the eyes of the authority?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Nad M also read this 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus-crucifixion-reflected-in-soil-deposition/

A Geological Study May Indicate Earthquake Described by Matthew

We have historical data recording seismic activity around Jesus' time, by Roman historians. None of them concord with the NT account. Go there again 

As to the speculations of that Christian apologist site (it may be, it suggests etc) here is a footnote from the same website

Update: Geologist Jefferson Williams responded to Bible History Daily about the online attention given to the geological study. Bible History Daily has updated the article to reflect his commentary, and has copied a portion of his comment here that clarifies the initial report (read the full comment in the comments section below):

“I am the primary author of the research article and the original Discovery Article grossly misrepresented our work… Our article had very little to do with the date of the crucifixion. The article discussed Earthquake Geology and primarily how we arrived at a date for this earthquake (31 AD +/- 5 years). Because of uncertainties associated with the text of Matthew 27, we departed from previous Dead Sea Paleoseismology and dated the earthquake based purely on what we saw in the sediments. We then used an article by Humphreys and Waddington to compare our earthquake date with the date range of the crucifixion and the two years most commonly cited; 30 AD and 33 AD. If I had a do-over, I never would have mentioned those years since the only relevant textual information for our 3 conclusions was the date range of 26-36 AD. We are not New Testament Scholars and did not try to add textual information to come up with an exact date. Unfortunately, that was the impression of the Discovery article and this spread all over the internet.”

 

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Nad_M

I'm hoping your having a wonderful day. The weather was very nice today.

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

One who gives up his own will to another, as Jesus does her, is in submission

I personally would not use that word as it sounds like a master and slave. It's cool though if you do.

As for me i'd rather use the word obedience or accent or compliance.

I would say we are both in agreement Yeshua was obedient to the Father.

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The ordeal had not yet begun

No it has not. Would you agree that if Yeshua did get off the cross when the circumstance happened and did not drink of the cup he would be in total disobedience of the Fathers will. 

Would you agree that disobedience to God is sin?

Psalms 75:8 For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.

Another question I would ask you is according to the hebrew bible the cup is meant for the wicked? Then why is the Father giving this cup to Yeshua? As we both know Yeshua never sinned and was perfect. Why did he deserve this cup for the wicked?

Hmmmm unless the sins of the world was placed on him and he took the wrath that belongs to us.... Very interesting.

The bible is so amazing..... Who needs tv or videogames....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Of course. And it was explained why these discoveries contradict the NT tale. See this again https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072388-why-did-the-high-priest-tear-his-garment/?do=findComment&comment=3363419

Ok, I guess were at a stand still because I believe these sites contradict your sites and none of us will budge.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

2 https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2013/06/nazareth-in-the-first-century.html

4 Geisler, N. L. (2013). The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House. Pg. 319.

5 Geisler, N. L. (2013). The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House. Pg. 320.

6http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as

7 https://www.cleveland.com/religion/index.ssf/2009/12/archaelogists_in_nazareth_say.html

8 https://www.livescience.com/49941-jesus-home-photos.html

9  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/has-the-childhood-home-of-jesus-been-found/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The Arabic qawl does not necessarily entail verbal speech. See the clear explanation there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/03/cira-international-debunk-quran-solomon.html?m=1

I actually took time to read that website and alot of things do not make sense.

The website says the Arabic qwal means communicating and not necessarily through sound waves but through chemical signals. It says Solomon was given the ability of understanding their type of communication.

Yet this is not taught in the quran or mentioned. Also the quran mentions that Solomon was amused by the female ants speech.

The key word is speech I looked up the arabic word used which was कलाँ or kalaam which by definition means speech, word, remark, utterance, talk.

Meaning that he heard them talk physical words.

You could say it was a miracle from God but then I would wonder what reason would God have for producing this miracle? What would God achieve by having ants talk. In the torah/tanach and NT there is always a reason God would make a miracle happen.

As for the other things written in that website it was basically just bringing situations that happened in the bible, which is diverging from the subject at hand.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

His work has disappeared and partially shows up in Christian apologists texts. Zero reliability.

Next to that we have the preserved works of several known historians of the time. Unsurprisingly, just like Peter and Paul, none of them mention those events.

Theophilus of Antioch and Sextus Julius Africanus religion does not disprove their text or show in any way that they would be lying that is speculation on your part.

Was not Matthew a historian as well do you not agree?

Like we talked about why would Peter and Paul have to mention an event that was experienced at the time?

Did Peter and Paul say that the Earthquake did not happen? If the event never happened would not they go around saying. "People I know it was said an Earthquake happened but it's a lie."

If this was a great lie in Matthew would not they try to disprove it?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The same way he reminds them of the miracles Jesus did in front of their eyes

That is the difference my friend.

Not everyone was there to witness those miracles of Yeshua or witness the crucifixion and resurrection. Yet everyone would have experienced an Earthquake would you not agree?

Also if this was a lie would not they rebuke it and tell the people, "This Earthquake reported is a lie it never happened." Would not they try to disprove it?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes a netser/shoot, i.e. a new growth from the Davidic line as is clear in context. Nothing to do with Nazairos in reference to Jesus' hometown and neither does Isaiah11 state he will be called netser.

Would you agree that Matthew did not mention any singular Hebrew Bible Prophet?

He did mention that the Hebrew bible prophets (plural) predicted that Yeshua would be called a Nazarene. So would not it be wrong to try to find a singular verse concerning this? Instead we need to find general truths found in many prophets to agree with his Nazarene like characteristics?

There are several suggestions as to how Yeshua could have fulfilled this. If you would like to hear I would be more then happy to show you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

That is not what they supposedly did with Jesus. It was a trial for blasphemy. The consequences of such a move must have been worth it, as explained previously. Yet they knew their efforts would be useless and illegal in the eyes of the authority?

The question I would like to ask you is was it a trial that involved power or a powerless trial?

Let me explain if let's say a person goes to trial for murder and is found guilty. Would that trial end with the guilty person facing a penalty? For instance a death penalty. 

Was there a death penalty inflicted on Yeshua by the High Priest and the Jews or was it placed on him by the Romans?

If it wasn't the High Priest and the Jews then why did their trial in the sanhedrin hold no power? Would the Romans be against a powerless trial? Would it not make sense that they would allow them to consult concerning an action as long as they did not take that action?

Would not it make sense that the Romans as the conquerors be the supreme power of the land to take action. So the Jews having no power to inflict punishment is in perfect alignment with their authority as long as their was no consequences on the part of the Jews.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nad_M there is also another source of an Earthquake in Nicea by St Jerome who does not mention Jerusalem. He does mention in passing the Earthquake which he dates to the 19th year of Tiberius. The account of Orosius. 

He did mention that Emperor Tiberius exempted the damaged cities in Bithynia in Asia Minor from tribute and gave generous donations towards repair.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

I would say we are both in agreement Yeshua was obedient to the Father.

God is obedient, against will, towards another entity called the Father? Can you show a single time where the Father, against his will, is obedient to Jesus?

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Another question I would ask you is according to the hebrew bible the cup is meant for the wicked?

Not the way Jesus uses this metaphor. Jesus is refering 3 times to the cup of suffering he wants taken away from before him. The same way he refers to the suffering of James and John earlier Matt20"Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"

Whatever was this masterplan of salvation Jesus had sketched together with his partners before the universe began, he did not want any of it if it was only up to him "not my will but yours be done"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

The website says the Arabic qwal means communicating

It is the definition of the lexicons.

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

this is not taught in the quran or mentioned

It says he smiled at the qawl of the ant. It doesnt say he heard.

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

kalaam which by definition means speech, word, remark, utterance, talk.

Kalaam is not in the verse

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

what reason would God have for producing this miracle?

Solomon was given mastery over the seen and unseen creatures on a level no human was granted before and after him.

The verse shows the purpose, increasing Solomon, which was not an idolater, in his spiritual awareness and gratefulness to God. This pattern is seen in all of his favors, showing Solomon's constant return to Allah whenever he notices the extent of his dominion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Theophilus of Antioch and Sextus Julius Africanus religion does not disprove their text

It shows a biased agenda, especially knowing the history of early Christian apologetics and the manner they mishandled, misquoted or outright invented sources to suit their purposes. And once more, Thallus' work has disappeared. On the other hand we have available a plethora of independant contemporary historical works, even recording seismic activities of the region, all of them, just like Peter and Paul, saying nothing of what is descrribed in Matthew. That is why in the absence of independant corroboration, as seen from the deafening silence of all historical records available, any objective reader will take Teophilus and his colleague's claim with a pinch of salt.

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

 why would Peter and Paul have to mention an event that was experienced at the Time?

Because Peter does mention the miraculous events Jesus did in his lifetime and which his disbelieving audience knew about, so as to enhance his arguments. Yet he fails saying a word about the events they allegedly witnessed and that corroborate the climax of Jesus' suicide mission? Instead he goes on refering to HB prophecies to convince them.

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Did Peter and Paul say that the Earthquake did not happen?

No, because the embellishments to the narrative occured later

 

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Not everyone was there to witness those miracles of Yeshua or witness the crucifixion and resurrection

His audience knew and witnessed Jesus' miracles.

"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know"

Edited by Nad_M
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...