Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,328 members, 7,780,843 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 12:05 AM

Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ (3650 Views)

PHOTO: The "Real" Face Of Jesus Uncovered / Nigerians, Road Accidents And The Blood Of Jesus. / Thought Provoking Analysis On Non Traditional Religion (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 5:21pm On Jul 31, 2014
Macelliot:
Fallacies from anti-CHRIST sites(e.g answering-christianity.com).....
Low IQ.
Do you know the meaning of Jesus/Yeshua?
Do you know the meaning of Emmanuel/Immanuel?
Do we have another Messiah apart from Jesus Born of A Virgin?
Was Isaiah the Messianic Prophet refering to another Messiah who has not yet appeared?
If you say it wasn't refering to Jesus, then you MUST tell me the person who the messianic prophesies was refering, if not then you are a Hypocrite!!! ......
Taqiyya is running in your veins!!!

I will respond first by quoting the following:

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

Luke 22:65, “And they threw all sorts of terrible insults at him.”

Mathew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

I quoted the Bible directly and I don't know about your anti Christian sites. Do not shift the burden by obfuscating the facts. I am willing to learn because what I know is that I know nothing. Do not resort to anger and name calling. Remember extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Here is the standard in the Bible. If you are a good Christian:

2 Timothy 2:14-15:"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Tell me where it was shown that Christ was named Immanuel in the Bible. Do not shift this back to me because you can't respond to a question by propounding another counter question.

As for Isaiah 7:14, The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14 is put back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out of.
Isa 7:10-16 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9. Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it. The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

It is troubling to note that many Nigerian self acclaimed Christians are not really interested in the truth. You are more interested in regurgitated dogma and feel-good doctrines while ignoring or twisting the obvious. To many Nigerian Christians, if the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, they would have believed it.

What you need to do is to point to biblical verses that support your argument. If you can't do that, please hold your peace for it is better to remain silent and be deemed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

Finally, you have to learn to attack the message and not the messenger.Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."

And you have the temerity to delete the quoted bible verses. You are bold!

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 6:44pm On Jul 31, 2014
omonuan:

I will respond first by quoting the following:

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

Luke 22:65, “And they threw all sorts of terrible insults at him.”

Mathew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

I quoted the Bible directly and I don't know about your anti Christian sites. Do not shift the burden by obfuscating the facts. I am willing to learn because what I know is that I know nothing. Do not resort to anger and name calling. Remember extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Here is the standard in the Bible. If you are a good Christian:

2 Timothy 2:14-15:"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Tell me where it was shown that Christ was named Immanuel in the Bible. Do not shift this back to me because you can't respond to a question by propounding another counter question.

As for Isaiah 7:14, The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14 is put back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out of.
Isa 7:10-16 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9. Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it. The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

It is troubling to note that many Nigerian self acclaimed Christians are not really interested in the truth. You are more interested in regurgitated dogma and feel-good doctrines while ignoring or twisting the obvious. To many Nigerian Christians, if the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, they would have believed it.

What you need to do is to point to biblical verses that support your argument. If you can't do that, please hold your peace for it is better to remain silent and be deemed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

Finally, you have to learn to attack the message and not the messenger.Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."

And you have the temerity to delete the quoted bible verses. You are bold!
Thanks for that!
I'm sorry for that!
Don't start an issue you aren't certain about...
He that wants to eat the kernel must eventually crack the nut.
Stop beating around the bush, go straight to the Question.....
Who were the verses refering to and give proof?
Simple as ABC!!!
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 8:52pm On Jul 31, 2014
Macelliot:
Thanks for that!
I'm sorry for that!
Don't start an issue you aren't certain about...
He that wants to eat the kernel must eventually crack the nut.
Stop beating around the bush, go straight to the Question.....
Who were the verses refering to and give proof?
Simple as ABC!!!

I can't prove a negative is a general maxim. You are the one that made the assertion that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Jesus as Immanuel. In my previous write-up, I showed why your interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is incorrect. If you have a direct proof that Jesus was named Immanuel in the bible, provide it for all to see. You you been engaging in the shifting of burden of proof to me. This is called argument ad ignorantium. It is a well known fallacy!

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. However, the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition which is you in this instance.

If it makes you feel better to assume that Isaiah 7:14 is saying that Christ was named Immanuel, that is fine with me but it still does not mean it is true. Furthermore, your belief would not be biblical. It would simply be your own private interpretation.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that white means white and black means black! How sad that most do not understand these straightforward verses.

2 Peter 1:20-21:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." KJV

Revelation 22:16
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

I rest my case!
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 9:17pm On Jul 31, 2014
The unprovability of non-existence.

Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things that cannot properly be doubted. “

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 11:45pm On Jul 31, 2014
omonuan:

I can't prove a negative is a general maxim. You are the one that made the assertion that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Jesus as Immanuel. In my previous write-up, I showed why your interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is incorrect. If you have a direct proof that Jesus was named Immanuel in the bible, provide it for all to see. You you been engaging in the shifting of burden of proof to me. This is called argument ad ignorantium. This is a well known fallacy!

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. However, the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition which is you in this instance.

If it makes you feel better to assume that Isaiah 7:14 is saying that Christ was named Immanuel, that is fine with me but it still does not mean it is true. Furthermore, your belief would not be biblical. It would simply be your own private interpretation.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that white means white and black means black! How sad that most do not understand these straightforward verses.

2 Peter 1:20-21:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." KJV

Revelation 22:16
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" rest my case!
But the Prophesy of Isaiah was refering to the Messiah.


Where the Messiah would come from....
Hope in the messiah.
9:1 Nevertheless, that
time of darkness and
despair will not go on
forever. The land of
Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the
Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with
glory. - Isaiah 9:1
Jesus Christ was from Nazareth in Galilee... His disciples were all from Galilee..




[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=ESV]Matthew 1:21-23[/url] 21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” - [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=ESV]Matthew 1:21-23[/url]
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 4:11am On Aug 01, 2014
Macelliot:
But the Prophesy of Isaiah was refering to the Messiah.


Where the Messiah would come from....
Hope in the messiah.
9:1 Nevertheless, that
time of darkness and
despair will not go on
forever. The land of
Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the
Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with
glory. - Isaiah 9:1
Jesus Christ was from Nazareth in Galilee... His disciples were all from Galilee..




[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=ESV]Matthew 1:21-23[/url] 21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” - [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=ESV]Matthew 1:21-23[/url]

You are just going in circles. You have provided no proof that Jesus was named Immanuel despite your futile attempts to argue that he was the messiah and thus Immanuel. You are using smoke and mirrors.

According to you, Mathew said:"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." However, this is not a proof that Jesus was named Immanuel. Moreover, you clearly mentioned that Mathew 1:22 said the son has to be named "Jesus" not Immanuel. You have continuously failed to show that Immanuel was ever the name given to Jesus.

What name was given to Christ at birth? Mathew contradicted himself just two verses later at 1:25 and said that Joseph gave the son the name "Jesus" thereby rendering you and Mathew's assertion that he was to be named Immanuel null and void:

" But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Mathew 1:25

Wherefore,Jesus was not named Immanuel supporting my argument. I had never disputed that Mathew made such assertion that Messiah would be called Immanuel. What I have maintained is that Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible therefore his birth could not have fulfilled Isaiah 7:14.

Other than Matthew's overreach in trying to retrofit a prophesy, Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible. Take it or leave it!

Your bringing in other quotes from Isaiah 9:1 are just as futile because they provide no evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel. This is the main issue.

I am done with this argument. I leave you with the following as a lesson:

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Hopefully, you learned a few lessons here. Goodbye!

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 12:31pm On Aug 01, 2014
omonuan:

You are just going in circles. You have provided no proof that Jesus was named Immanuel despite your futile attempts to argue that he was the messiah and thus Immanuel. You are using smoke and mirrors.

According to you, Mathew said:"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." However, this is not a proof that Jesus was named Immanuel. Moreover, you clearly mentioned that Mathew 1:22 said the son has to be named "Jesus" not Immanuel. You have continuously failed to show that Immanuel was ever the name given to Jesus.

What name was given to Christ at birth? Mathew contradicted himself just two verses later at 1:25 and said that Joseph gave the son the name "Jesus" thereby rendering you and Mathew's assertion that he was to be named Immanuel null and void:

" But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Mathew 1:25

Wherefore,Jesus was not named Immanuel supporting my argument. I had never disputed that Mathew made such assertion that Messiah would be called Immanuel. What I have maintained is that Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible therefore his birth could not have fulfilled Isaiah 7:14.

Other than Matthew's overreach in trying to retrofit a prophesy, Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible. Take it or leave it!

Your bringing in other quotes from Isaiah 9:1 are just as futile because they provide no evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel. This is the main issue.

I am done with this argument. I leave you with the following as a lesson:

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Hopefully, you learned a few lessons here. Goodbye!
You are entitled to you own opinion!
No more Fruitless arguement.... What has happen has happened....
The End will justify the Means......
Have a nice day. Bye!
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 1:30pm On Aug 01, 2014
Macelliot:
You are entitled to you own opinion!
No more Fruitless arguement.... What has happen has happened....
The End will justify the Means......
Have a nice day. Bye!

After when you don derail the thread undecided

Anyway the analysis will be updated very soon
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by LaRoyalHighness(f): 1:53pm On Aug 01, 2014
Intelligent analysis I must say... Woah! I seek the truth... the whole truth... nothing but the truth.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by yazach: 2:29pm On Aug 01, 2014
omonuan:

You are just going in circles. You have provided no proof that Jesus was named Immanuel despite your futile attempts to argue that he was the messiah and thus Immanuel. You are using smoke and mirrors.

According to you, Mathew said:"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." However, this is not a proof that Jesus was named Immanuel. Moreover, you clearly mentioned that Mathew 1:22 said the son has to be named "Jesus" not Immanuel. You have continuously failed to show that Immanuel was ever the name given to Jesus.

What name was given to Christ at birth? Mathew contradicted himself just two verses later at 1:25 and said that Joseph gave the son the name "Jesus" thereby rendering you and Mathew's assertion that he was to be named Immanuel null and void:

" But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Mathew 1:25

Wherefore,Jesus was not named Immanuel supporting my argument. I had never disputed that Mathew made such assertion that Messiah would be called Immanuel. What I have maintained is that Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible therefore his birth could not have fulfilled Isaiah 7:14.

Other than Matthew's overreach in trying to retrofit a prophesy, Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible. Take it or leave it!

Your bringing in other quotes from Isaiah 9:1 are just as futile because they provide no evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel. This is the main issue.

I am done with this argument. I leave you with the following as a lesson:

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Hopefully, you learned a few lessons here. Goodbye!

Very good analysis for a right thinking human being undecided

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by BabaGnoni: 2:51pm On Aug 01, 2014
omonuan:

You are just going in circles.
You have provided no proof that Jesus was named Immanuel despite your futile attempts to argue that he was the messiah and thus Immanuel. You are using smoke and mirrors
.

According to you, Mathew said:"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."
However, this is not a proof that Jesus was named Immanuel.
Moreover, you clearly mentioned that Mathew 1:22 said the son has to be named "Jesus" not Immanuel.

You have continuously failed to show that Immanuel was ever the name given to Jesus.

What name was given to Christ at birth?
Mathew contradicted himself just two verses later at 1:25 and said that Joseph gave the son the name "Jesus"
thereby rendering you and Mathew's assertion that he was to be named Immanuel null and void:

" But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Mathew 1:25

Wherefore, Jesus was not named Immanuel supporting my argument.
I had never disputed that Mathew made such assertion that Messiah would be called Immanuel.
What I have maintained is that Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible therefore his birth could not have fulfilled
Isaiah 7:14.

Other than Matthew's overreach in trying to retrofit a prophesy, Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible. Take it or leave it!

Your bringing in other quotes from Isaiah 9:1 are just as futile because they provide no evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel.
This is the main issue
.

I am done with this argument. I leave you with the following as a lesson:

2 Timothy 3:16:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

Hopefully, you learned a few lessons here. Goodbye!

Macelliot:
You are entitled to you own opinion!
No more Fruitless arguement.... What has happen has happened....
The End will justify the Means......
Have a nice day. Bye!

Rilwayne001:

After when you don derail the thread undecided

Anyway the analysis is will be updated very soon

@Rilwayne001
The thread was not derailed, as the banter between omonuan and Macelliot served it's purpose

@omonuan and Macelliot
Una both try now, no need taking all this personal.

Weird as it may sound omonuan was right on that naming issue
What Macelliot on the other hand, omitted to state was that though Jesus was never named Emmanuel (i.e. God with us)
He, Jesus, however was God,
and was referred to or called Emmanuel (i.e. God with You or God with us)

The Isaiah 7:14 prophecy which omonuan was flailing arms over was actually fulfilled by Nicodemus in John 3:2,
some other group agreed to this too in John 9:33, whilst the rest of the others (e.g. the Pharisee) doubted in John 9:16

It is just like, people see things about other people and call them names they weren't given, so the same, it was with Jesus.
Jesus was not out-rightly named Emmanuel but others could see the "Emmanuel" about or in Him
Those that saw the "Emmanuel" acknowledged it in John 3:2 or John 9:33
while others that in John 9:16 doubted, denied or refuted the "Emmanuel" in or about Him even attempted assassinating Him in John 10:33

They replied,
"We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy!
You, a mere man, claim to be God."

- John 10:33 NLT

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 11:47am On Nov 21, 2014
Part 2 loading.....
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 2:20pm On Nov 21, 2014
Rilwayne001:
NOTE: Dont Just Scan Through, Read Thoroughly. This thread is not created to bash anybody but to enlighten the reader.

DEDICATED TO: True2god, Truthman2012, malvisguy212, francistony, macelliot and all other NL members.

INTRODUCTION
It is not the peripatetic "ministry" of Jesus, with all its healings, wise teachings and astounding miracles, that is the bedrock of the Christian religion. Rather, it is the extraordinary melodrama of his death and resurrection, sometimes expressed as the "promise of the cross" or in the pithy aphorism, "No Resurrection, No Christianity."

It is therefore, perhaps, quite shocking that the biblical statements that purport to support the reversal of the most certain of laws – that the dead stay dead – amounts, in toto, to less than 600 words. The "conquest of death", it would seem, rests upon the evidence of rather fewer words than the text of a McDonald's Happy Meal menu!

Sad to relate, but there are NO independent, corroborated, disinterested or contemporary accounts of the "resurrection" of Jesus Christ, although that claim is often made. The truth is that ALL that passes for testimony for the Risen Lord comes from the same storybook and a handful of unsubstantiated characters. Whilst it is almost certainly the case that in their original format the gospels circulated as distinct writings, they are in no sense independent testimonies. This is particularly the case with the passion and resurrection narratives, a motley collection of terse, hearsay reports derived from a common source and built into a common, confused and confusing, tradition.

The rational mind is aghast at the limitations, flaws and contradictions of the biblical sound-bites. Yet this is the bedrock of the Christian faith. For all the deficiency of the incredulous claims, those who want to believe will believe. It's called "faith."

MAIN TOPIC

Mark – a star witness?

"Faith rests on the historical testimony of those who saw and gave witness."

The post-mortem appearances to be found in Matthew, Luke and John, though each adding flourishes of their own, are all built on a core story accredited to a shadowy figure called "Mark".

Whoever "Mark " was, he was certainly no eye-witness to either the life or death of Jesus. Church tradition maintains that "Mark" – said to have been the erstwhile travelling companion of Paul – went to Rome and wrote down the testimony of Peter. But, on Mark's own evidence, Peter himself was NOT a witness to many of the events described in his own gospel, including the baptism of Jesus, the temptation of Jesus, the healing of the Phoenician woman's daughter, Jesus Christ's prayers in the garden of Gethsemane ( all possible witnesses were asleep!) and even the crucifixion itself:

" They all forsook him and fled. " – Mark 14:50.

Even supposing Peter was hanging around Golgotha, how could Peter know, for example, what the centurion said at the cross or Pilate's reaction to Joseph of Arimathea? We have to create multiple, unknown testimonies to keep Peter informed. As for the resurrection appearances, Peter could only rely on information from Mary Magdalen, or perhaps the other Mary or Salome. And yet the women themselves relied on the testimony of an angel – and said nothing!

Matthew, Luke and John copied from Mark, who heard from Peter, who heard from Mary , who heard from an angel .

How's THAT for "eye-witness" testimony?!

"Look – an empty tomb!"

"Every known Gospel of early times, alike in the great Church and in heretical circles, used St Mark as the leading authority for the history of the life of Jesus." – C. Turner, "The Gospel of Mark", A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, III. p46.

Mark's resurrection story begins with a rolled stone and an empty tomb (but even that idea wasn't original*). Early Christians were unhappy with the abrupt and enigmatic ending of Mark and set to work on improving the text.

" At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel." – Michael W. Holmes, Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus , (BAR, 2010)


WHY MOVE THE STONE AT ALL?
The "Rolled Stone" – a theatrical flourish

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them [/b]and said to them, "Peace be with you." – John 20.19.

Although the gospels tell us that the resurrected Jesus appeared and disappeared at will, popping up and vanishing " in the midst of them ", it was still necessary to "b[b] move the stone " for him to exit the tomb.


But why?

Why didn't Jesus Christ teleport out of the tomb leaving the stone in place? Now that would have been even more impressive!

The anomaly betrays the fabricated nature of the post- mortem appearances of the Christian godman. A god would not have needed to move the stone but the storyteller did! With the stone still in place who would have known something miraculous had happened?

A god that materializes in a closed room in Jerusalem, on the shore of Lake Tiberias, or on a mountain in Galilee, most certainly needed no stone moved to allow him to leave a tomb. But the narrator of a sacred play needed the "moved stone" as a theatrical flourish, in order that female visitors to the tomb (and the audience) could see "the body ... gone!"
We are talking theatre, not history.
The following Qur’anic verse records Jesus as saying:
Surah 19:33:
Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! (Pickthall)
“There was peace on me the day I was born, and will be the day I die, and on the day I will be raised from the dead.” (A. Ali)

Muslim scholars, who believe that Jesus did not die, find themselves in
a dilemma at verses like the one provided above. Knowing that the
above testimony of Jesus in Surah 19:33 clearly proves that he died before his ascension to heaven, many Muslim apologists attempt to respond by saying that this is a future event. They try to explain away
this Qur’anic verse by saying that Jesus will die when he comes back
the second time and then be raised back to life. They say this with no
rhyme or reason except to evade an obvious contradiction in the
Qur’an. Well, what evidence do they provide to make such an
outrageous claim? None! But, this interpretation poses a problem for Muslim scholars because the very same phrase is also expressed just a
few verses earlier in the Qur’an regarding John the Baptist (Yahya). We
can read an almost identical passage about John the Baptist in Surah 19:15. Note the similarity in the wordings:
Surah 19:15: And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life. (Shakir)

However, in the case of John the Baptist, Muslims scholars have no
trouble recognizing the fact that this verse is speaking about his
immediate death. And they also have no problem in understanding
that it is only after his death that he will be raised to life in Paradise on
the Day of Resurrection. The chronological sequence of event is clearly
understood and correctly applied here. Yet, in the case of Jesus, we find Muslims having Jesus ascending to God before dying. They deliberately distort and destroy the chronological sequence of the event, even
though the chronological sequence is identical in both cases. Muslim
scholars would rather make completely unsupportable arguments than
admit that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is taught in this
Qur’anic verse. Of course, their unwillingness to come in terms with the
truth is because they are aware that a correct interpretation of Surah 19:33 will lead to a contradiction of Surah 4:157. Either Jesus died or he did not. It cannot be both. Since the Qur’an teaches both, Allah has
left Muslims with little choice other than to deceive and manipulate a
verse that really needs no explanation.
If the interpretation of these Muslim scholars is correct, then Surah 19:33 should have Jesus saying: “Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I shall be raised alive and the day I shall die” in harmony with their claimed chronological sequence of events. But it
does not.

MY QUESTION.
We must ask these scholars, since Surah 19:33 and Surah 19:15 are identical in the sequence of events, why don’t they also shift the death
of John the Baptist to the future – after his resurrection – as they did in
the case of Jesus? Why the discrepancy?

In fact, there is not a single passage in the entire Qur’an that shows
that Jesus will return to die. Since the parallel statement in the case of
John shows that he died, clearly then, Jesus must also have died
accordingly. There is an interesting remark by the renowned Qur’an
translator, Yusuf Ali, in his footnote of Surah 19:33:
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 2:41pm On Nov 21, 2014
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 2:43pm On Nov 21, 2014
LaRoyalHighness:
Intelligent analysis I must say... Woah! I seek the truth... the whole truth... nothing but the truth.
www.nairaland.com/2008614/evidences-death-jesus-quran-prove
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:40pm On Feb 04, 2015
malvisguy212:
The following Qur’anic verse records Jesus as saying:
Surah 19:33:
Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! (Pickthall)
“There was peace on me the day I was born, and will be the day I die, and on the day I will be raised from the dead.” (A. i, in his footnote of Surah 19:33:

Now you don't believe the Quran, but you are using the Quran to refute my points. The question is, Do you believe the Quran?
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:41pm On Feb 04, 2015
Rilwayne001:
Part 2 loading.....
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 9:52pm On Feb 04, 2015
Rilwayne001:


Now you don't believe the Quran, but you are using the Quran to refute my points. The question is, Do you believe the Quran?
I don't believe in the quran, the quran made mention of biblical prophet, muhammed must have read the scripture from the Jews and he misinterpreted the word of God,unfortunately for him he exposed his lies.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 10:09pm On Feb 04, 2015
Pls summarize, I don't read lenghty thrash!
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:37am On Feb 05, 2015
malvisguy212:
I don't believe in the quran, the quran made mention of biblical prophet, muhammed must have read the scripture from the Jews and he misinterpreted the word of God,unfortunately for him he exposed his lies.

You don't seem to get my point.

@bolded...you claim not to believe the Quran, then why are you using it in refuting the OP, all my points are from the biblical passages that you believe **or don't you believe the bible as well?**. Please address the OP without quoting the Quran, you don't believe it and it shouldnt be your evidence in refuting the OP.

1 Like

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 10:50am On Feb 05, 2015
Rilwayne001:


You don't seem to get my point.

@bolded...you claim not to believe the Quran, then why are you using it in refuting the OP, all my points are from the biblical passages that you believe **or don't you believe the bible as well?**. Please address the OP without quoting the Quran, you don't believe it and it should be your evidence in refuting the OP.
you are the one who don't understand, AS LONG AS THE QURAN MADE MENTION OF BIBLICAL PROPHET,and went ahead to contradicts the nature of God,we will points out the lies.beside century before the quran made this claimed,the bible has already made such claimed.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 11:17am On Feb 05, 2015
malvisguy212:
you are the one who don't understand,

Stop being a gainsayer bros....If i raise my claim based on the bible, you oughy to refute it based on the bible, you don't believe the Quran why should you use it in validating your point?

Please adrress the OP if you have anything to say, the basis of this thrrad is that the ressurection story according to the bible is inconsistence and false and the Quran didnt record anything about this particular biblical myth, therefore, using the Quran in validating this sham is stup1dity. You should go through the OP once again and come back.

AS LONG AS THE QURAN MADE MENTION OF BIBLICAL PROPHET,


Indeed the Qurand made mention of some biblical prophet, but do you believe in its story? No.

Meanwhile, I didnt make mention of it in the OP, so trying to force the Quran here is an attempt to derail. Use your bible to refute and validate your points stop this nonsense.

and went ahead to contradicts the nature of God,we will points out the lies


Why don't you point out the lies in the oP if you are truthful to yourself? Is the bible inerrrant? the OP says no, The OP demolish the backbone of the christian faith sometimes expressed as the "promise of the cross"..i.e. "no ressurection no christianity.

.beside century before the quran made this claimed,the bible has already made such claimed.

Are you saying that the Quran also claim all that the bible claimed in the OP (the resurrection myth according to the bible)
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 12:04pm On Feb 05, 2015
Rilwayne001:

Stop being a gainsayer bros....If i raise my claim based on the bible, you oughy to refute it based on the bible, you don't believe the Quran why should you use it in validating your point?

Please adrress the OP if you have anything to say, the basis of this thrrad is that the ressurection story according to the bible is inconsistence and false and the Quran didnt record anything about this particular biblical myth, therefore, using the Quran in validating this sham is stup1dity. You should go through the OP once again and come back.



Indeed the Qurand made mention of some biblical prophet, but do you believe in its story? No.

Meanwhile, I didnt make mention of it in the OP, so trying to force the Quran here is an attempt to derail. Use your bible to refute and validate your points stop this nonsense.



Why don't you point out the lies in the oP if you are truthful to yourself? Is the bible inerrrant? the OP says no, The OP demolish the backbone of the christian faith sometimes expressed as the "promise of the cross"..i.e. "no ressurection no christianity.



Are you saying that the Quran also claim all that the bible claimed in the OP (the resurrection myth according to the bible)
the quran say Jesus was not crucified;
Surah 19:33: Peace on me the day I
was born, and the day I die, and the
day I shall be raised alive! (Pickthall)

Here they shift the death of Jesus to the future. just a few verses earlier in the
Qur’an regarding John the Baptist (Yahya) We can read an almost identical passage about John the Baptist in Surah 19:15. Note the similarity in the wordings:
Surah 19:15: And peace on him on
the day he was born, and on the day
he dies, and on the day he is raised
to life. (Shakir)

Why don't the Muslim shift the death of john the baptist to the future? You said the even was not written in the quran but here it is with contradiction with the earlier scripture(bible)

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 12:24pm On Feb 05, 2015
malvisguy212:
the quran say Jesus was not crucified;
Surah 19:33: Peace on me the day I
was born, and the day I die, and the
day I shall be raised alive! (Pickthall)

Here they shift the death of Jesus to the future. just a few verses earlier in the
Qur’an regarding John the Baptist (Yahya) We can read an almost identical passage about John the Baptist in Surah 19:15. Note the similarity in the wordings:
Surah 19:15: And peace on him on
the day he was born, and on the day
he dies, and on the day he is raised
to life. (Shakir)

Why don't the Muslim shift the death of john the baptist to the future? You said the even was not written in the quran but here it is with contradiction with the earlier scripture(bible)

Are you this dull damn.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 12:32pm On Feb 05, 2015
Malviaguy, please answer this.

Is the Quran the reason why you believe the biblica myth of the resurection of Jesus Why are you trying to derail for goodness sake angry
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Ifeann(f): 3:22pm On Feb 05, 2015
Rilwayne001:
NOTE: Dont Just Scan Through, Read Thoroughly. This thread is not created to bash anybody but to enlighten the reader.

DEDICATED TO: True2god, Truthman2012, malvisguy212, francistony, macelliot and all other NL members.

INTRODUCTION
It is not the peripatetic "ministry" of Jesus, with all its healings, wise teachings and astounding miracles, that is the bedrock of the Christian religion. Rather, it is the extraordinary melodrama of his death and resurrection, sometimes expressed as the "promise of the cross" or in the pithy aphorism, "No Resurrection, No Christianity."

It is therefore, perhaps, quite shocking that the biblical statements that purport to support the reversal of the most certain of laws – that the dead stay dead – amounts, in toto, to less than 600 words. The "conquest of death", it would seem, rests upon the evidence of rather fewer words than the text of a McDonald's Happy Meal menu!

Sad to relate, but there are NO independent, corroborated, disinterested or contemporary accounts of the "resurrection" of Jesus Christ, although that claim is often made. The truth is that ALL that passes for testimony for the Risen Lord comes from the same storybook and a handful of unsubstantiated characters. Whilst it is almost certainly the case that in their original format the gospels circulated as distinct writings, they are in no sense independent testimonies. This is particularly the case with the passion and resurrection narratives, a motley collection of terse, hearsay reports derived from a common source and built into a common, confused and confusing, tradition.

The rational mind is aghast at the limitations, flaws and contradictions of the biblical sound-bites. Yet this is the bedrock of the Christian faith. For all the deficiency of the incredulous claims, those who want to believe will believe. It's called "faith."

MAIN TOPIC

Mark – a star witness?

"Faith rests on the historical testimony of those who saw and gave witness."

The post-mortem appearances to be found in Matthew, Luke and John, though each adding flourishes of their own, are all built on a core story accredited to a shadowy figure called "Mark".

Whoever "Mark " was, he was certainly no eye-witness to either the life or death of Jesus. Church tradition maintains that "Mark" – said to have been the erstwhile travelling companion of Paul – went to Rome and wrote down the testimony of Peter. But, on Mark's own evidence, Peter himself was NOT a witness to many of the events described in his own gospel, including the baptism of Jesus, the temptation of Jesus, the healing of the Phoenician woman's daughter, Jesus Christ's prayers in the garden of Gethsemane ( all possible witnesses were asleep!) and even the crucifixion itself:

" They all forsook him and fled. " – Mark 14:50.

Even supposing Peter was hanging around Golgotha, how could Peter know, for example, what the centurion said at the cross or Pilate's reaction to Joseph of Arimathea? We have to create multiple, unknown testimonies to keep Peter informed. As for the resurrection appearances, Peter could only rely on information from Mary Magdalen, or perhaps the other Mary or Salome. And yet the women themselves relied on the testimony of an angel – and said nothing!

Matthew, Luke and John copied from Mark, who heard from Peter, who heard from Mary , who heard from an angel .

How's THAT for "eye-witness" testimony?!

"Look – an empty tomb!"

"Every known Gospel of early times, alike in the great Church and in heretical circles, used St Mark as the leading authority for the history of the life of Jesus." – C. Turner, "The Gospel of Mark", A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, III. p46.

Mark's resurrection story begins with a rolled stone and an empty tomb (but even that idea wasn't original*). Early Christians were unhappy with the abrupt and enigmatic ending of Mark and set to work on improving the text.

" At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel." – Michael W. Holmes, Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus , (BAR, 2010)


WHY MOVE THE STONE AT ALL?
The "Rolled Stone" – a theatrical flourish

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them [/b]and said to them, "Peace be with you." – John 20.19.

Although the gospels tell us that the resurrected Jesus appeared and disappeared at will, popping up and vanishing " in the midst of them ", it was still necessary to "b[b] move the stone " for him to exit the tomb.


But why?

Why didn't Jesus Christ teleport out of the tomb leaving the stone in place? Now that would have been even more impressive!

The anomaly betrays the fabricated nature of the post- mortem appearances of the Christian godman. A god would not have needed to move the stone but the storyteller did! With the stone still in place who would have known something miraculous had happened?

A god that materializes in a closed room in Jerusalem, on the shore of Lake Tiberias, or on a mountain in Galilee, most certainly needed no stone moved to allow him to leave a tomb. But the narrator of a sacred play needed the "moved stone" as a theatrical flourish, in order that female visitors to the tomb (and the audience) could see "the body ... gone!"
We are talking theatre, not history.



Any intelligent person who has read past commentary by muslim and Christian apologists as well as is knowledgeable on both sides of the argument -i.e crucified or not crucified will immediately tell u that ur argument is baseless and not backed up by historic evidence, not to mention biblical records and OT prophecies .

Don't u see how incredibly flawed this article is, it is biased and with no shred of objectivity. Please make sure u put the name of the pro Islamic propaganda website u copied this from.

I don't have the time to explain these errors to you but I will let one of the leading muslim scholars Reza Aslan , who has extensively studied about Jesus and is an author of books criticising the new testament/historic manuscripts tell u in his own words. I don't agree with all he says ...but da.mn he, a muslim, studied the historic evidence and concluded the quran is wrong..and Jesus was indeed crucified and died..infact click the link let him do the talking....remember ur quran says he wasn't , it was all your allah's deception.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-7D75ftmk

For any christain,atheist, muslim that is in doubt of the topic please watch this debate by the best muslim apologist in the world shirby Ali (this is not my opinion but he is very intelligent, nakir zaki doesn't come close ) and christain theologian Dr mike licona as they debate the topic...

A Point to note is that upcoming christain apologist Dr Nabeel Qureshi(exmuslim) saw this debate and finally renounced Islam. So be careful when u watch it, u may leave Islam. All my claims are verifiable online, make sure to google for it (mike licona debates shirby Ali on youtube ).Here is the link as well


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUjaXHyBsw
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Ifeann(f): 3:35pm On Feb 05, 2015
Rilwayne001:


Are you this dull damn.


Debate the man u muslim stop insulting him...

U Muslims keep following the spirit of the anti Christ and keep denying the divinity of Christ...


Your Koran says
Qur'an 4:157
They said (in boast), "we killed christ jesus the son of mary, the messenger of Allah". 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 doubt, without(certain) knowledge, but only conjective to follow, for a surety they killed him not.

And

Qur'an 9: 30
"AND THE JEWS SAY, EZRA IS THE SON OF Allah, AND THE CHRISTIAN SAY: THE MESSIAH IS THE SON OF Allah, THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THEIR MOUTHS; THEY INITIATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVED; MAY Allah DESTROY THEM; HOW THEY ARE TURNED AWAY


In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man (Daniel 7:13) and
David's Lord (Psalm 110:1)
Jesus helped people who called him Lord, and never rebuked when people worshipped him (Matthew 14:30-33)
Moreover in John 5:22-23 22 , the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. Jesus judges us all, Jesus is one with God and the son of God.

The scripture is very clear on the nature of Jesus and his mission in the world. Check also Mathew 11:27, 17:5,John 5:17-18 and peters answer to Christ's question about who he was in Mathew 16:16.

The scripture is also very clear in;
1 John 2:22, 'Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that
Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. This is Islam.

1 John 4:2-3 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Several times this term is used in the plural, and can be applied to almost anyone who is opposed to Christ. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are anti-Christ or of the spirit of antichrist. Clear description of Islam.

1 John 4:1
beloved,believe not every spirit,but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets has gone into the world. Does this remind u of a certain blood thirsty "prophet".

This is one of the ways to discern a false teacher from a true one.

In 1 Corinthians 14:33 My bible tells me in clear terms that God is not the author of confusion. There is so much confusion in Islam ask the Wahabi, Salafists, sunnis, shites alwaites, ahmedies. They kill each other because of minor differences remember how you sunnis killed ur prophets grand kids. Shia Muslims are still upset.

My bible also tell me in Matthew 7:15-20,“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Islams fruits are rotten and that's the truth my friend.

So in conclusion;
God the father acknowledged Jesus as his son (john 17:5)
Jesus called himself the Son of God.
His disciples called him the son of God.
Isaiah from the old testament prophesied about him and called him the son of God.
Angel Gabriel in the first chapter of Luke called Jesus the Son of God.
John the baptist called Jesus the son of God.
The Jews who hated him accused him of claiming he is the Son of God
Demons he casted out called him the son of God.

Yet u Muslims choose to believe the words of a pagan sex addicted slave trader mass murderer illiterate Arab paedophile who died after he was poisoned.

May the one true God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, father of Jesus set you free when u come to him for truth.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 4:24pm On Feb 05, 2015
Rilwayne001:


Are you this dull damn.
you have no answer to my post so you result to insult, the op need no answer because it was an idea of men, check all my thread against Islam, I did not add a single idea of men, all my claimed is from the quran and hadith.

Did john the baptist died? According to the quranic verse I gave.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by truthman2012(m): 7:58pm On Feb 05, 2015
Maryam 19:33

In this verse, Jesus is reported
to say: “Peace is on me the day I
was born, the day that I die, and
the day that I shall be raised up
to life (again)!” (Qur’an, Surah
Maryam

Surah Al-Imran 3:55 and
Surah Al-Maida 5:116-117

Another Qur’anic passage that
speaks of the death of Jesus is
Surah Al-Imran 3:55: “Behold!
Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take
thee to Me [Arabic:
mutawaffeeka, meaning ‘I will
cause you to die’ ] and raise thee
to Myself and clear thee (of the
falsehoods) of those who
blaspheme; I will make those
who follow thee superior to
those who reject faith, to the
Day of Resurrection.’”

The very same phrase is used
of John the Baptist (Yahya) just
a few verses earlier:
"So Peace is on him The
day he was born, The day
that he dies, And that day
he Will be raised To life
(again)!" Quran. 19:15

Why did John physically die and muslims say Jesus didn't die? Both of them said they would die.

Then said Jesus, Let her alone: againt the day of my BURYING hath she kept this (Jn 12:7).

Was he to be buried alive?
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 4:34pm On Feb 06, 2015
Ifeann:

[s] Yet u Muslims choose to believe the words of a pagan sex addicted slave trader mass murderer illiterate Arab paedophile who died after he was poisoned. [/s]

With the above post it is obvious you are here to provoke and not to learn....and seriously my heart bleeeds after reading this last night, I had to control myself by reminding myself of the verse of the Quran that says:

Quran, 28:55 "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: 'To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant. '

Quran, 3:159 "It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults), and ask for (Allah's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

I pass to him your faults and ask his forgiveness upon you for your blasphemous act on this section.

Frosbel has done more than you, he hates islam more than you, he is more fanatic more than you, check his threads its over 2000, about 500 of it attacks islam the ways you are doing now.
Now search for frosbel and see if he is still displaying his ignorance like before.

Oh well! the thing is pinching you, you are one of thise zealous christian who just stumbled on some anti-islam website. Well people like Brave.guy, Francis.tony, macell.iot and frosbel has done more than you so its not a new thing, continue.

But as for me, I will try as much as possible to ignore you, because I so much hate ignorant stiffnecked people like you.

Bon voyage.
Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Ifeann(f): 7:07pm On Feb 06, 2015
Rilwayne001:


With the above post it is obvious you are here to provoke and not to learn....and seriously my heart bleeeds after reading this last night, I had to control myself by reminding myself of the verse of the Quran that says:

Quran, 28:55 "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: 'To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant. '

Quran, 3:159 "It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults), and ask for (Allah's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

I pass to him your faults and ask his forgiveness upon you for your blasphemous act on this section.

Frosbel has done more than you, he hates islam more than you, he is more fanatic more than you, check his threads its over 2000, about 500 of it attacks islam the ways you are doing now.
Now search for frosbel and see if he is still displaying his ignorance like before.

Oh well! the thing is pinching you, you are one of thise zealous christian who just stumbled on some anti-islam website. Well people like Brave.guy, Francis.tony, macell.iot and frosbel has done more than you so its not a new thing, continue.

But as for me, I will try as much as possible to ignore you, because I so much hate ignorant stiffnecked people like you.

Bon voyage.

Salam
I am upset that ur heartbled yesterday ... Believe me that was not my intention.

Let's look at what made ur heart bleed.

I said amongst other things that he was pagan sex addicted slave trader mass murderer illiterate Arab paedophile.

Was he a pagan. Yes, most likely.
For example;
1. Mohammed's Pagan father was called Abdullah, which means slave of Allah long before Mohammed started Islam.
2. The crescent moon and star is seen high above almost every mosque not to mention the moon god was allegedly one of the 360 gods of the kabba.
3. The muslim obsession with black clothes.
4. The Islamic black flag.
5. The kissing of the black stone done by Muslims which was started by Mohammed for no apparent reason.
6. The circling of the kabba.
7. Compulsory pilgrimage for Muslims which was done by pagans in mecca before Islam.
8. Bowing down and facing mecca when praying. Etc
9. Cultural Superstitions and unfounded hate for wall geckos, dogs(mans best friend), cats etc
All these are some of the red flags that indicate that there maybe more to Islam than meets the eye. These pagan practises are not seen in Judaism and Christianity which Mohammed claims are people of the book and says he is one of their "prophets". Could Islam be the worlds largest monotheistic pagan religion. Let's look at more evidence.

2.sex addict, yes certainly.

The quran and hadiths are filled with his relationships with his 11 - 13 wives, including sex with his sex slaves. It is everywhere in ur quran and hadiths.

3. slave trader.

Do I need to remind u of all the hadiths of him trading slaves including his exchange of 2 black slaves for one Arab slave ..etc

Here are some reminders for you from ur sources;

Bukhari (34:432)- Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked also asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765)- A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351)- Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

4. mass murderer:

ï won't go into details in this because u know the truth from ur hadiths.

Let me remind u of some quran verses.

Quran 8:39. "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do."

Qur'an (9:29)-"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Sura 9:5. "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."


5. illiterate:

Muslims are the ones who tell me he was illiterate and he managed to recite the quran, this is in an effort to prove he was a prophet.

6. Arab:

Mohammed was an Arab or was he African.

7. Paedophile: yes he was, he married to Aisha and consummated the the marriage when she was nine years. Several Muslims say it was allowed in the Arab culture back then but I ask is it moral or right. ??

Look I don't even think Mohammed was an illiterate, I also think he was an intelligent man. I get offended when people call him names like stupid or silly or any thing disparaging his intellect or not backed up by facts.
I also think Mohammed was brave and fearless. But these attributes do NOT make him a true prophet. Hilter, Stalin etc also had these attributes.

***mordified : dude I forgot to mention about the poison..

U do know that ur prophet died of poisoning.
If u don't know this one muslim fact then why are u a muslim.. I know how Christ died every christain does.

Now the debate in Islam is who actually poisoned him..
The sunnis say it was a Jewish woman who gave him goat meat as tribute, the man must have loved his meat because the story says that the Jewish womans tribe was slaughtered by Mohammed and his jihadists.

The shi'a say it was Aisha. Poor Aisha is hated so much by shi'as. This is one of the reasons why shias and sunnis have killed each other for generations. Remember it was u sunnis that killed ur prophets grandkids if I remember correctly. I assume u are sunni since u guys make up 90percent of nigerian Muslims.

2 Likes

Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 4:55am On Jun 28, 2016
Mr. Seun, you might want to check this out. Funny enough, non of them is yet to tackle the OP since it was created.

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

Mental Slavery In Christianity / First Fruit: Even The Poor And Aged Are Not Spared- Daddy Freeze / Love and Light

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 176
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.