keyanZuzer:

Lol! Masalam brother. I can see who does not have the religious tolerance you speak of. You call us terrorists; fine, there is freedom of speech so you can say anything you want to. We Muslims are used to the backlash and that changes nothing. Please leave us to keep redeeming our image as we are not complaining about redeeming the image of Islam. As long as Allah (SWT) is not complaining, then your opinion does not matter. Masalam

keyanZuzer:

Lol! That's why he was asking why God had forsaken him on the 'cross' abi?

DirewolfofStark:


So you now accept he was on the cross? I thought the muzzies have always denied that Jesus was crucified. And yet you are willing to accept his crucifixion in the name of taqiyya? You guys are dumber than I thought.

keyanZuzer:

LMAO! Accepting? I'm quoting your scriptures. Jesus was never crucified. Believe it or not. And when you talk about someone being dumb, I think we should agree that you type without thinking Mr. Smarty pants

DirewolfofStark:


There are at least 5 references to Jesus crucifixion made by historians who were alive at the time the event took place:

1. The Roman Historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion.


2. Pliny The Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny also spoke about Jesus crucifixion in his writings.

3. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius writes extensively on the crucifixion of Jesus.

4. The Babylonian Talmud references Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

5. Lucian of Samosata was a 2nd century Greek Writer who also mentioned the crucifixion in his writings.


All these people were not Christians so they had no motivation to make up lies on behalf of Christianity. The only logical explanation why so many different people would agree that the event took place was because it actually happened.

Muhammad on the other hand was an illiterate who lived about 700 years after the crucifixion so only an idi.ot would believe the words of an illiterate over those of credible historical sources.

keyanZuzer:

Really? Yet, the 'son of God', ' the kings of kings', ' the most high 'was scared and had to pray to himself to save him. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. (John 26: 39)

…. He went away again, and prayed the second time and prayed, saying ……and prayed the third time, saying the same words. (John 26:42-44)
Don't you find it a little bit strange? Moreover, we Muslims believe another was crucified in place of Jesus so, the historians have it right that a person(not Jesus was crucified)

DirewolfofStark:


He said: "If it be possible let this cup pass from me but nevertheless, thy will be done

Of course he was in agony because the prophecy said that Christ had to "suffer". It wasn't enough for him to die for our sins. If death was the only requirment for salvation then all Christ would have to do was to ask the Roman soldiers to stab him with a sword and kill him. But death was not the only requirement. He also had to suffer. The scriptures are very clear about this:

Luke 9: 22

"The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life"


Jesus had to face the daunting task of paying the price for all of humanity as a living sacrifice, and yet he overcame his fears and fulfiled the scriptures.

How you can equate Jesus overcoming death with Muhammad being afraid of a mere eclipse of the sun is baffling. It is typical of the the lack of intelligence I've encountered from most muslims.

keyanZuzer:

The same scriptures that said no harm would come to Jesus even to the hair on his head is the same Jesus that was beaten and crucified according to the Bible. Why so many conflicting passages?

DirewolfofStark:


What scripture? Provide Chapter and Verse.

keyanZuzer:

John 19vs 36 which says Jesus'bone would not be broken

DirewolfofStark:


John 19 vs 36: Now these things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of His bones will be broken.”

The prophecy of David in Psalm 34:20 was fulfilled in John 19: 36.

Psalm 34: 20 He keeps all his bones, Not one of them is broken....

So how can the fulfillment of prophecy be an inconsistency? Or is the muslim mind too slow to grasp such a fundamental concept?

keyanZuzer:

Lol! How slow can the brain of a medical student with a 158 IQ be? That's by the way. Tell me something, how would a 7-9 inches nail pass through the carpals of a human without breaking? Or through the tibia of a human without breaking? The Bible clearly stated that he was nailed to the 'cross'.

kabawa:


Peace Be Unto Him
Accept islam now and your life will never remain the same.

DirewolfofStark:


The nails were not driven in at the tibia but in BETWEEN the metatarsal bones on his feet. The bones on the feet and the hands are widely spaced. And so the only part of his body that would have been damaged would be soft tissue, tendons and muscle. It is theoretically possible for the bones to remain intact.

keyanZuzer:

If the nail passed through a soft tissue, then it would not be able to hold him for that long as the force of gravity would force the tissue to tear off. The crucifixion pictures of the Catholics show that it passed through his ulna and according to Psalm 22:16 we find the phrase “They have pierced my hands and my feet.”

DirewolfofStark:


They have pierced my hands and feet

In other words, Metatarsals and Metacarpals. Not the ulna and the tibia. Also the Romans were in the habit of tying the arms of the crucified to the horizontal beam of the cross with corded ropes to make sure their bodies would not fall off the cross after they lost consciousness.

DirewolfofStark:


They have pierced my hands and feet

In other words, Metatarsals and Metacarpals. Not the ulna and the tibia. Also the Romans were in the habit of tying the arms of the crucified to the horizontal beam of the cross with corded ropes to make sure their bodies would not fall off the cross after they lost consciousness.

keyanZuzer:

Here's another version

DirewolfofStark:


Jesus's words to his disciples when they saw him after his resurrection:

Luke 24:39

"Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see--for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

keyanZuzer:

You still quote these disciples. These disciples that fled during the 'persecution'

DirewolfofStark:


You mean the same disciples that took the body off the cross? The same ones who washed it and prepared it for burial? The same ones who had the opportunity of examining the wounds up close? I shouldn't believe them, but I should believe an illiterate Arabian pedophile "prophet" who advised his followers to drink camel urine?

keyanZuzer:

Lol! Was it Matthew, mark, Luke or John that took his so called body off the cross? Probably you don't know of Joseph of Arimathea

DirewolfofStark:


And who was Joseph of Arimathea? Joseph was one of the disciples. John 19:38 makes this clear:

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.

keyanZuzer:

Remind me what chapter of the Bible Joseph wrote?

DirewolfofStark:



As Mark 15: 43 shows Joseph was also an important political figure in Jerusalem:


Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent Council member [/b]who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, boldly went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus.

In the body of Christ there are many different duties and responsibilities. As Paul put it in 1st Corinthians 12:30:


[b]Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not!

Joseph had his own role to play in the Kingdom that had nothing to do with writing.

keyanZuzer:

Thank you. So how the hell were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John able to give accounts of what they did not see?

DirewolfofStark:


Why would they not be able to give accounts when they witnessed it all? The disciples were only absent at the trial of Jesus before the Jewish High Council (The Sanhedrin) That was where Peter made his famous three times denial. At the actual crucifixion, they were in the crowd:

John 19: 26

…Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” So from that hour, this disciple took her into his home and cared for her as his mother

keyanZuzer:

According to John, only one disciple was present

DirewolfofStark:


They were ALL present. As John explained in 1 John 1, the gospel of the disciples was the evidence of their own eyes and ears and hands. It was not hearsay or second hand evidence:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.


All the more reason why the illiterate arabian pedophile cannot be relied upon as a credible source for Christ's life for the simple fact that HE WASN'T THERE.