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
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

the Hebrew bible prophets (plural) predicted that Yeshua would be called a Nazarene

The only prophet (singular) that comes close to Matthew's claim is Isaiah11. Yet neither does he refer to a location as Matthew does, neither does he say the messiah will be called netser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Would it not make sense that they would allow them to consult concerning an action as long as they did not take that 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.

Once more, it was a trial not a consultation, whose purpose was to charge Jesus of blasphemy. 

The Romans wouldn't care for such  verdict, all they were interested in is crushing potential rebellious movements. Hence their alleged execution of Jesus for his  messianic claims.

The Jewish trial was irrelevant on all counts. It is pure fiction for the dark purposes mentioned earlier 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

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.

 

Once more. We have the seismic records available through independant secular sources. None of which corroborate the NT. 

This is why the same Christian apologetic source quoting Jerome states the following:

The fact that these earthquakes in Jerusalem are not mentioned by contemporary pagan writers, or by three out of the four Evangelists, suggests that they may have been inspired by the topos of nature’s reflecting events of great importance, and they must not be considered as referring to historical earthquakes.

In other words, even biblical scholars admit it is an embellishment.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Nad_M 

Hope your day is well.

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?

I don't follow what you are saying.

We are both in agreement that Yeshua had to be obedient to God right?

You agreed before that he submitted to God.

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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?"

I agree Yeshua asked God, "If you are, willing take this cup away.", but we both agree he said, nevertheless not my will BUT YOURS BE DONE." so he followed God's will.

This is verified in the situation that Peter cut a soldier of the High Priest's ear. Yeshua told him to put away his sword because he has to drink of the cup.

In the situation with James and John Yeshua was showing that in a sense they would share in the ordeal that he was about to undergo. They would not escape suffering for Yeshua's name.

Not to the extend that Yeshua did.

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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"

He did not want to drink of God's cup, yet as you are well aware off he agreed to drink it.

If he didn't he would be in disobedience. And disobedience to God is sin.

He emphasized repeatedly on many occassions that the reason he came was to give his life a ransom for many.

So yes this was planned before the Word of God manifested in the flesh.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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.

I'm trying to understand, not trying to be disrespectful. I wont bother much with this after.

So he was given the power to understand the language of ants? Not just ants but over all creatures.

Was it like the thoughts of the ants or what was in their hearts? In the ants heart where they thinking that Solomon and his Soldiers were coming so lets run and Solomon understood their thoughts.

Or was it communication so while the ants where communicating through scents or signals. Solomons power gave him the ability to be able to interpret the communication or the sound made and in so doing to Solomon it appeared in human language when in reality it wasn't. 

Am I close?

Again i'm not trying to be a wise guy just trying to understand.

I heard of people that have a type of telepathy with animals where they can interact with animals and are able to understand them. I am not sure if they understood in human language but there's a study for it.

In Solomon's case you believe it was more like a miracle as in he was given this power.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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.

This is very stereotypical and illogical thinking.

With your logic we can't trust anyone because muslim schollars also has a history of mishandling, misquoting the same can be said of athiest, jews and everyone else.

If a muslim makes a claim i'm not just going to say. He's a muslim he must be bias and misquoting. I would find out if that person is telling the truth or not. i would not judge on their religion or ecthnicity or race.

Thallus work might have disapeared but it it was quoted. 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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.

They knew about it as Jesus was famous but not everyone witnessed it. For instance Herod heard the rumors of Jesus and never met him.. Not everyone witnessed the crucifixion or the miracles.

Yet an Earthquake will be something they would all experience.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tek91 said:

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.

In Peter 3:18-20 Peter says that Christ suffered once for sin, the righteous for the unrighteous that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Will you agree to that?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

No, because the embellishments to the narrative occured later

Yes but Peter knew Matthew and if Matthew was spreading lies or believed in lies he would have spoken up and corrected him and tell people not to listen to this crazy person would he not?

That's same logic you give if something is not written it must be a lie.

Hey so the Earthquake did happen because Peter did not tell the people it did not. 

I'm just using your logic on you.

Peter collaborated the death of Jesus for sin so will you accept it?

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

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"

Knew is the key word.

They knew his miracles but not everyone was there to witness them.

He did the miracles among them meaning the jewish people it did mean they all where there.

The Earthquake would have been experienced and felt by all of them.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The only prophet (singular) that comes close to Matthew's claim is Isaiah11. Yet neither does he refer to a location as Matthew does, neither does he say the messiah will be called netser.

The word used it Matthew 2:23 was not singular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Once more, it was a trial not a consultation, whose purpose was to charge Jesus of blasphemy. 

The Romans wouldn't care for such  verdict, all they were interested in is crushing potential rebellious movements. Hence their alleged execution of Jesus for his  messianic claims.

The Jewish trial was irrelevant on all counts. It is pure fiction for the dark purposes mentioned earlier 

I mentioned to you it was a trial and asked you if the trial held any power. You did not respond.

Where is your evidence that trials in the sanhedrins where not aloud during 33 AD? This also I have yet to receive a respond.

According to what I read under Roman rules the Sanhedrin was still allowed to exist but their power was limited. They could give a death sentence but where not aloud to carry it out.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Once more. We have the seismic records available through independant secular sources. None of which corroborate the NT. 

This is why the same Christian apologetic source quoting Jerome states the following:

The fact that these earthquakes in Jerusalem are not mentioned by contemporary pagan writers, or by three out of the four Evangelists, suggests that they may have been inspired by the topos of nature’s reflecting events of great importance, and they must not be considered as referring to historical earthquakes.

In other words, even biblical scholars admit it is an embellishment.

There we go if it's by a christian it's false. 

The quran is false then because no where is it collaberated. It's just the words of one man.

Why do I sense such anger and hatred in you and your words. You should relax a bit this is a friendly dialogue forum. No need to be disrespectful of each other.

Can we try to dialogue without insulting or saying christians must fabricate things or calling books fake.

We wont get no where by being disrespectful.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

We are both in agreement that Yeshua had to be obedient to God right?

Sure. Is there any instance of the Father going against his own will to obey the Son?

9 hours ago, tek91 said:

so he followed God's will

Yes, against his own will "not my will but yours be done"

if it was only up to Jesus, he would not have comitted suicide for the sake of humanity. But he bowed to the Father's will.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

while the ants where communicating through scents or signals. Solomons power gave him the ability to be able to interpret the communication or the sound made and in so doing to Solomon it appeared in human language when in reality it wasn't. 

He was able to perceive and understand the communication, not the sound, of the ants.

The Quran puts in human language what the ants communicated to one another and what Solomon perceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

With your logic we can't trust anyone because muslim schollars also has a history of mishandling, misquoting the same can be said of athiest, jews and everyone else

This logic does not apply to the situation at hand. We have secular sources, multiple ones, recording seismic activity in Jesus' time. None corroborate the NT.

The only one that does happens to be a lost work partially quoted in Christian apologetics. That is why even biblical scholars dismiss Matthew's account as fictional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

They knew about it as Jesus was famous but not everyone witnessed it.

Everyone in Peter's audience saw Jesus' miracles, as Peter explicitly says. Otherwise his allusion to miracles would be dismissed as fabrications.

So given that Peter was reminding a disbelieving audience of events in Jesus' life they knew about, so as to enhance his arguments, why does he not do the same in regards to Matthew's cataclysms (earthquakes, eclipse) and supernatural events (zombies in the streets of Jerusalem) so as to demonstrate the cosmic nature of Jesus' suicide?

As noted by your own sources, the reason is simple. Matthew, like the rest of the gospels were writing from a pagan mindset where such events accompanied the lives and deaths of the gods.

The fact that these earthquakes in Jerusalem are not mentioned by contemporary pagan writers, or by three out of the four Evangelists, suggests that they may have been inspired by the topos of nature’s reflecting events of great importance, and they must not be considered as referring to historical earthquakes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Yes but Peter knew Matthew and if Matthew was spreading lies

The embellishments were added to the story after the writer of Acts2 related Peter's speech. Or he would have mentioned them just as he mentioned the miracles in Jesus' life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

He did the miracles among them meaning the jewish people it did mean they all where there.

The "among you" refers to the Jewish audience he was speaking to. Not the entire nation.

When one addresses agroup of people with such words, it cannot exclude a single one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

The word used it Matthew 2:23 was not singular.

Which makes it all the more wrong. In no passage other than Isaiah11 does the HB describe the messiah with netser. And even that passage does not agree with Matthew, for the reasons mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Where is your evidence that trials in the sanhedrins where not aloud during 33 AD?

That is not the point. They could not try anyone the death penalty. 

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

They could give a death sentence but where not aloud to carry it out.

Why would they give a death sentence knowing that neither would they be allowed to carry it out, nor their verdict would be of any legal value to the Roman authorities? It was already explained that blasphemy, the charge the Jews had against Jesus, was irrelevant to the Romans.

This fictional trial was unnecessary on all counts, and given the long list of halakha hurdles that had to be broken to be carried out, makes it all the more improbable. The reason for such insertion in the NT was political as explained there https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072388-why-did-the-high-priest-tear-his-garment/?do=findComment&comment=3363578

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes, against his own will "not my will but yours be done"

if it was only up to Jesus, he would not have comitted suicide for the sake of humanity. But he bowed to the Father's will.

 

There was no suicide. Yeshua didn't hate his life and want to die.

Yeshua dying for the sin of the World is more similar to a martydom.

He died to save us.

Like he said in Luke 19:10 the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

This logic does not apply to the situation at hand. We have secular sources, multiple ones, recording seismic activity in Jesus' time. None corroborate the NT.

The only one that does happens to be a lost work partially quoted in Christian apologetics. That is why even biblical scholars dismiss Matthew's account as fictional.

Wait so you don't trust Christians schollars, but yet you are trusting the so called christian schollars that dismiss Matthews account.

Isn't that hypocricy?

I can assure you so called Christians that would deny Matthews account are minorities. 99% of Christians accept it.

If you deny schollars because of their faith in Christianity you would have to deny the works of people like Robert Boyle, Antoine Lavoisier, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Werner Heisenberg and alot more of the most brilliant minds in history.

If collaboration is so necessary why doesn't the quran have any collaboration of what is written there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Everyone in Peter's audience saw Jesus' miracles, as Peter explicitly says. Otherwise his allusion to miracles would be dismissed as fabrications.

So given that Peter was reminding a disbelieving audience of events in Jesus' life they knew about, so as to enhance his arguments, why does he not do the same in regards to Matthew's cataclysms (earthquakes, eclipse) and supernatural events (zombies in the streets of Jerusalem) so as to demonstrate the cosmic nature of Jesus' suicide?

As noted by your own sources, the reason is simple. Matthew, like the rest of the gospels were writing from a pagan mindset where such events accompanied the lives and deaths of the gods.

The fact that these earthquakes in Jerusalem are not mentioned by contemporary pagan writers, or by three out of the four Evangelists, suggests that they may have been inspired by the topos of nature’s reflecting events of great importance, and they must not be considered as referring to historical earthquakes

They heard the rumors not everyone saw the miracles. Peter was talking to Israelites saying that Jesus of Nazareth did miracles wonders and sign among them. Not that every Israelite saw it. 

Also like I mentioned the Earthquake was not important to salvation. Jesus dying for atonement of sin was which he mentioned.

Would you agree he mentioned Jesus dying for sin?

You also talk about collaberation

Who collaborates Mohammad splitting the moon or spitting in Alis eye and causing healing?

Please if you are going to set a standard live by it.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

embellishments were added to the story after the writer of Acts2 related Peter's speech. Or he would have mentioned them just as he mentioned the miracles in Jesus' life.

Peter and Matthew were both disciples. If Matthew was spreading lies about the events concerning the crucifixion or believing a lie Peter would correct him and tell the people not to listen to this crazy man.

Why didn't he do that?

I also showed you non christian historians who mentioned Jesus being put to death who saw him as a magician. Also many collaberations in the books of the NT.

So will you believe he died for sins?

Also Luke mentions the veil being torn in two which was as a result of the Earthquake.

Meanwhile where is the collaberation that Mohammad split the moon? Where is an outside of quran account of it?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

"among you" refers to the Jewish audience he was speaking to. Not the entire nation.

When one addresses agroup of people with such words, it cannot exclude a single one of them.

Among Israelites read in context that means among the nation. That does not mean every jew witnessed it.

Why was Herod Antipas who was a jew so happy to finally meet Jesus to hope to see a miracle? Didnt he already saw it according to you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Which makes it all the more wrong. In no passage other than Isaiah11 does the HB describe the messiah with netser. And even that passage does not agree with Matthew, for the reasons mentioned.

Its referring to prophets not just one and that means we need to find through many prophets to agree with his Nazarene like characteristics.

It's kind of long but if you want i'll be more than happy to post it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

That is not the point. They could not try anyone the death penalty. 

23 hours ago, tek91 said:

They could give a death sentence but where not aloud to carry it out.

Why would they give a death sentence knowing that neither would they be allowed to carry it out, nor their verdict would be of any legal value to the Roman authorities? It was already explained that blasphemy, the charge the Jews had against Jesus, was irrelevant to the Romans.

This fictional trial was unnecessary on all counts, and given the long list of halakha hurdles that had to be broken to be carried out, makes it all the more improbable. The reason for such insertion in the NT was political as explained there https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072388-why-did-the-high-priest-tear-his-garment/?do=findComment&comment=3363578

Where is your evidence they could not hold a powerless trial?

You have yet to provide an ounce of evidence.

Matthew 27: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:

Pontius Pilate was the governor and told the jews to judge according to their laws.

The Jews could judge a person but not commit any death penalty as this shows.

You have yet to show that the sanhedrin had no power to put to trial a person. They were just limited in the actions they could take.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

If you deny schollars because of their faith

Rejecting or accepting a scholar has nothing to do with his religion but whether he handles historical sources in an unbiased, objective manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

They heard the rumors

That is not in the text. Peter is addressing a group of people, not the whole nation, telling them they know of what has occured of miracles among them. Nobody would believe him had they not seen with their eyes the miracles performed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/18/2021 at 3:06 AM, tek91 said:

For instance Herod heard the rumors of Jesus and never met him

That example is irrelevant as Herod was not among the crowd Peter was addressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

If Matthew was spreading lies about the events concerning the crucifixion or believing a lie Peter would correct him

The embellishment was added to the text after Peter's speech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

I also showed you non christian historians who mentioned Jesus being put to death

Not a single secular contemporary historian mentions Jesus or the crucifixion

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...