Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ (3686 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)
| Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:16pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
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. 2 Likes |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:17pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
THE "EMPTY TOMB" – THAT WASN'T EMPTY! Testimony of an angel – Vacuous Nonsense The earliest extant gospel manuscripts – whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or Armenian – make it embarrassingly obvious that the original version of Mark (upon which the other three evangelists built their own stories) finished at verse 16.8, that is, before the resurrection addendum of verses 9-20. Mark's original Jesus tale ended with nothing more impressive than an[b] "empty tomb" [/b]– except that the tomb wasn't empty at all! "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted." – Mark 16.5 The visitors – and again the audience – receive an explanation from the conveniently waiting angel (a "man in white"  – "It was a resurrection!"This "young man" verbalizes the sacred message; Jesus Christ is not here, but is risen, and will be seen again in Galilee. Thus the first "witness" to the resurrection is neither man nor woman but angel . The bewildered women flee the tomb, having received the angel's assurance that a resurrection has occurred – one absurdity vouching for another. Presumably, the women remembered the angel's injunction to tell the disciples, but, "afraid", they tell no one. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?! The naivety – and brevity – of this foundational "event" is breathtaking. As it stands, Mark's testimony to the resurrection is about as convincing as the assurance of a fortune cookie. The later gospels will improve upon this "eye-witness testimony" and provide responses to the obvious objections. THE STORY GET BETTER (WORSE) Jesus himself puts in an appearance "Initially Christians would simply have believed that Christ was risen; later, various stories about his appearances entered the tradition as attempts to substantiate this claim." – G. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p44. The author of Matthew adds drama to the minimalistic yarn inherited from Mark , notably a "first appearance" of the resurrected Jesus. Matthew begins by introducing tomb guards – unknown to Mark , or anyone else for that matter. The guards, in fact, will get more attention than the resurrection itself. Matthew introduces a "dramatic touch" – one that he has also used in his description of the crucifixion – an earthquake: "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it." – Matthew 28.2. Notice that Matthew solves one riddle left by Mark by having the angel move the stone. In Matthew's draft the female visitors are still "frightened yet filled with joy ", so now they are able to tell the disciples the good news (28.  . Matthew thus removes the anomaly left by Mark of how the story could be known.Matthew wants something more compelling than the testimony of an angel, so he intrudes an appearance of Jesus himself into the path of the running women. But Matthew has no new dialogue; his Jesus merely repeats words already spoken by the angel in Mark. The women say nothing but "clasp the feet" of the risen saviour: "Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him." Now that Jesus gives "evidence" of his own resurrection, and the same instruction to "go to Galilee", the role of the angel has become redundant and the text reads oddly! While these dramatic events are in progress the enigmatic guards, more seriously frightened than the women (!) " shake and become like dead men." Matthew turns his attention back to these traumatized wimps, using them as a ploy to start a so-called "rumour" that Christian's have found useful ever since – the "stolen body" straw man: " While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. [/b]When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, [b]"You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day ." – Matthew 28.11-15. This entire episode is directed at the objection that if the body wasn't in the tomb then an obvious explanation would be that somebody had removed it. The guards and the "sealing of the sepulchre" are intended to silence this objection. Why did the guards have to be made "as dead men"? Surely extra witnesses to the momentous event would have been useful? Precisely because the story is a fabrication. If it had really happened the testimony of a squad of temple guards, not followers of Jesus, would have started a chain of events that just did not happen. As a "real event" the passage is beset with problems. How on earth did the comatose guards know "everything that had happened"? How could they admit to being asleep yet be certain that the disciples had stolen the body?  Even more difficult to explain is how the author of Matthew could himself possibly know of the dastardly plan hatched by the chief priests and elders, which he anticipates as early as 27.64 with a meeting between priests, Pharisees and Pilate! So unrealistic is that suggestion that Matthew had to use the circumlocution "The day after the day of Preparation " rather than admit such a meeting would have disgraced the Sabbath !But they are the least of the difficulties. Was it a case that the Jewish priests understood clearly Jesus' prediction of his resurrection in three days but the disciples remained clueless? Are we to suppose that the Jewish leaders actually believed the "angel/resurrection" story told to them by the guards but chose to cover it up – and offered large sums of money to do so?! Matthew closes his tale with the eleven on a mountain in Galilee and the promised appearance of Jesus. Even now some doubt but he commissions them anyway to[i] "go make disciples of all nations ".[/i] |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:17pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
Reliable testimony? HOW many women at the tomb? Four + ? Luke 24.10: "It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles ." Three ? Mark 16.1: " And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene , and Mary the mother of James, and Salome , had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. " Two ? Matthew 28.1: " In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre ." One ? John 20.1: "The first day of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when itwas yet dark, to the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. " None ! 1 Corinthians 15.4,8: " He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas , then of the twelve . After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles . And last of all he was seen of me ." Luke has his own stab at beefing up the Resurrection Rambling with the Lord Luke, also working from Mark's original yarn, has nothing to say about "guards" or an "earthquake" but makes a simple enough enhancement to the opening scene: the single angel becomes " two men in shining garments". He clarifies that they are, in fact, angels by having them materialize in the presence of the "perplexed" women. The angels' message (spoken in unison?) is " He is not here, but is risen! " – identical to that used by Mark – but now the angels remind the women of Jesus Christ's prophetic words about crucifixion and third-day rising (just imagine, they had forgotten! ) The obedient women go tell " the eleven and all the rest " but are not believed and Luke doesn't mention the women again. However, rising star Peter is sufficiently stirred by their report that he rushes off to the tomb himself where he finds the discarded burial clothes and "marvels". Luke now intrudes his own major contribution into the "resurrection tradition" – the Emmaus encounter. This is the "most detailed" of all the resurrection reports – a whole twenty verses! Oddly enough, for what is arguably the most important country walk in history, the two witnesses are otherwise unknown and only one is even named! The one thing we can be sure of is they were NOT disciples – the "eleven" appear later in the same story. The yarn almost certainly post-dates what follows and has been patched into an earlier point in the tale. Luke reports that a man named "Cleopas" and an unnamed individual were on their way to Emmaus (a town so poorly attested that nine sites contend for the honour!) when the resurrected Jesus joined them but was unrecognized. Luke's Jesus lectures the "foolish" men on their failure to believe the prophets : “ O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! ... And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself ." This stress on scriptural prophecy – rather than the sheer marvel of resurrection – betrays the didactic purpose of the passage. Confronted with a risen corpse who would need a scriptural endorsement to believe?! The whole purpose is to demand belief from scripture without evidence. The episode finishes with a gesture towards the Eucharist. At dinner, Jesus becomes "known to them in the breaking of bread ." Immediately our hero "vanishes from their sight." TO BE CONTINUED |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Caseless: 9:24pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
Jesus was never 'crucified', he did not die, nor did he resurrected. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by mstik(f): 9:26pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
K |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by DoctorAshley(f): 9:40pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
those who lack faith will neva understand |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:47pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
DoctorAshley: those who lack faith will neva understand  1 Like |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 10:26pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
Rilwayne001: NOTE: Dont Just Scan Through, Read Thoroughly. This thread is not created to bash anybody but to enlighten the reader.Thanks for enlightment! Isaiah 53 will clear all your doubt about Christ Cruxification... Prophet Isaiah was a Prophet who Lived 700years before the birth of Jesus.... He prophesied the coming of the Messiah, how He would be born(Isaiah 7:14), where He would be born(Isaiah 9:1), What He would be called(Isaiah 9:6-7), His Suffering and His Death(Isaiah 53:1-12)....... Jesus was reading from the scroll of Isaiah in a Synagogue in His home town. He confirmed the prophesies of Prophet Isaiah.(Luke 4:17-20)... His own people did not believe He was the messiah, they wanted to stone Him to death, But He pass away by them because His hour has not yet come...... Since then, He began His Ministry....... Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.... My guy, cool your mind, All is well by God's grace. Believe in Christ!! Shallom!!! 3 Likes |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 11:12pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
Rilwayne001: NOTE: Dont Just Scan Through, Read Thoroughly. This thread is not created to bash anybody but to enlighten the reader.Well, let us read what the Quran says about the cross of Jesus Christ. This is in surat (Al Nissa), the first surat in the Quran. In verse 157, "And because of them saying we killed Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah. But they killed him not, nor crucified him. But the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man. And they killed that man (the man who was changed to resemble Jesus Christ, acc ording to the Quran). And those who differ there, are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge. They follow nothing but conjuncture for surely they killed him not, Jesus, son of Mary." Well, reading these verses in the Quran, we will come to this conclusion. Was there a crucifixion? Positively, absolutely. The verse says that there was a crucifixion, but the man who was crucified was not Jesus Christ, but someone else whom God changed his face to the face of Jesus, his voice to the voice of Jesus, and he was crucified in the place of Jesus Christ. Then crucifixion was reality. But who was crucified? This is what the Quranic verse is now discussing. Now, if we believe that Allah changed the face of that man, whoever he is, some people say it is Judah the Iscariot, and God changed his face to be like Christ. If we believe that, then God is a great deceiver because he deceived generations of men believing that the one who was crucified on the cross of Calvary was Christ, while he was not. And after 600 years he sent Mohammed to say, "They crucified him not." Well, what is the whole story? The whole story is the misunderstanding of the Muslims of the holiness of God, and of the corruption of men. These two issues are the central issues why the cross, the holiness of God, the corruption of men. Well, we have to realize something of great interest. The plan of salvation did not take place when Christ came and was born of a virgin. No. The plan of salvation was made in eternity, before the foundation of the Earth, before the creation of man. Because God was not taken by surprise when Adam failed into sin. You cannot surprise God. He knew that Adam will fall into sin. Before he created Adam, he made the plan of his salvation. Let me read for you a verse in 1 Peter 1:18-20: "Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver or gold, from your endless conduct received by tradition from your fathers;" "But, with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;" "For He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." So this plan of salvation was foreordained when? When Adam fell into sin? No, before the foundation of the world. Why did we have the plan of salvation that way? Because God wanted to demonstrate His holiness; He wanted to demonstrate His love; and He wanted us to see that He is the only one who can save us. Now man is corrupted by nature, and to tell me that we are born with good nature, obviously not. Crime is everywhere, in all the world. In Australia there are crimes, in Europe crimes, England crimes, US crimes, Africa crimes. Why? Because man is bad. Man is created, is born bad. He was born with falling nature. He took the falling nature from Adam, and that falling nature incline to do wrong, to sin. So because of that we cannot save ourselves. That's number one. Now, could we save ourselves with works? Well, the Bible was very clear, the wage of sin is death. The Bible didn't say that the wage of sin is to fast; the wage of sin is to good to a pilgrimage to Mecca or Jerusalem; the wage of sin is to pay some money to the poor, to built a hospital, a mosque, or a church. No! The wage of sin is DEATH . I have to die, or some other person to die. Well now, what was the plan? The plan was the Creator himself decided to come in the person of Jesus Christ and to die on the cross. THE ONLY WAY SATAN CAN STOP THE PLAN OF GOD IS THE QURAN.THANK BE TO JESUS WE DEFECT THE DEVIL. 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 11:19pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
DoctorAshley: those who lack faith will neva understandto see the foolishness of muslims, the believe God waited for 600yrs before he send muhammad to tell us some one made to look like jesus? YOU NEED JESUS. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by diamondpaul(m): 11:22pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
Am @ least happy ...i think all african's'think alike.?..#well the op's'has finally break it down for people who alway's'choose to view,talk,think nd run in d'wrong direction.....i support the op on this expository essay on the crucification of christ...what of if that saviour that they claim is coming hasn't come that jesus was just feeling his shoe...#just asking..no harm.. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 11:31pm On Jul 28, 2014 |
you never do masterpiece analysis on the decree, all muslim will go to hell fire, na crucifix they worried you. Surah 19:71: "It is the inevitable decree of your Lord that every one of you will be taken to hell."(Sarwar). |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 4:30am On Jul 29, 2014 |
malvisguy212: you never do masterpiece analysis on the decree, all muslim will go to hell fire, na crucifix they worried you. Why u come dey shake now? actually, i'm not done with the analysis, this is just a tip of an iceberg.malvisguy212: Surah 19:71: "It is the inevitable decree of your Lord that every one of you will be taken to hell."(Sarwar). Trashed.. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 7:24am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001:shake? For waiting nah? This topic as been clear but you will never agree. You called that verse from the quran trash? So Allah reveal trash, thank you for calling it trash. You need more? After the death and resurrection of jesus christ, Allah waited for 600yrs to say to an arabian man that jesus did not die,THE DEVIL IS A LIAR. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 7:55am On Jul 29, 2014 |
malvisguy212: shake? For waiting nah? This topic as been clear but you will never agree. i dont have your time mister...you are just too d*** |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 8:11am On Jul 29, 2014 |
See how you disgraced yourself here or the man you copied from. Probably an anti-christ. Rilwayne001: Reliable testimony? It doesn't mean they were only four women. Other in that context means there was three women with more than two other women. Probably 3, 4, 5 etcetra Three ? Luke mentioned three women with others meaning he doesn't know other womens name or he probably didn't bother because they are not necessary. While Mark didn't want to mention others. It doesn't mean there wasn't others. Two ? Other Mary in that context means there was Mary Salome and Mary mother of james. It doesn't equate them to only two people. One ? Birdbrain! John only wanted to use 'Mary Magdalene' since she was the only significant one among them all.  None ! Corinthians only omitted that part brahhh! Get a life  |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 8:15am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Macelliot: Isaiah 53 is so vague and it is simply a stretch to say that Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of this "prophesy." Here is what Isaiah 53:10 says: Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, Jesus according to the bible did not have any off springs neither were his days prolonged. So this fails the entire reference to him here despite your creative imagination. Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV): "Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]" Isaiah 7:14 also failed as a prophesy in a Reference to Jesus because at no time did the gospels show that he was given the name "Immanuel." They never called Jesus "Immanuel." The author of Matthew was really reaching when he created this “prophesy” from Isaiah 7:14. The supposed prophesy, in Isaiah 7:14, was for its time, not for Jesus (about 700 years in the future). Also, Isaiah 7:14 referred to a young woman ('almah'), not a virgin ('betulot'). 2 Chronicles 28 shows that King Ahaz (who received the prophesy from Isaiah) was later defeated — negating Isaiah's prophesy. Isaiah 9:1 is another figment of your imagination: "Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—" Jesus was not born in any of these towns. Luke has Jesus born in a stable, the traditional location. The family went to Jerusalem about eight days later, then returned to Nazareth. As for the mention of Isaiah in Luke 4: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus Luke 4:17-21 "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. " This is from Isaiah but it is Isaiah referring to himself. Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; Don't make these things up as you go, remember the following injunctions: 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: And to think that Paul said that "God is not the author of confusion"! (I Corinthians 14:33) Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. 1 Like |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 8:50am On Jul 29, 2014 |
FrancisTony: See how you disgraced yourself here or the man you copied from. Probably an anti-christ.Another d*** friend of mine ..Btw..e be like say u missed that why move the stone? part |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 8:52am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001:  |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 8:53am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001: Would be back later. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 8:54am On Jul 29, 2014 |
FrancisTony: okay sir |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 9:05am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001:you don't have anytin to say, all muslim are in hell. Check how satan disguise himself as Allah deceive you guys. It is stated in the Quran, That they said (in their boast), "We killed the Messiah Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (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 doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety They killed him not-Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise- Q 4:157-158. NOW LET ANALYSE THIS VERSE: Most Muslims believe this to mean that Jesus Christ never died but Allah made it appear to the people that he had been died. Most Muslims believe he was raised to Heaven without being put on the cross and God transformed another person to appear exactly like Jesus who was crucified instead of Jesus. This causes some serious problems that need to be addressed. If Allah tricked people into believing Jesus was died then this means that Allah started Christianity by his own deception, and He allowed Christians to be deceived. The whole foundation of the Christian faith is rested on death of Jesus. The historical reality of Jesus death is an essential of the Christian faith. Without Jesus death his resurrection becomes irrelevant, and without the resurrection Christianity itself is rendered meaningless, i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:14 "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." According to history hundreds of thousands of Christians--men, women, and children-- were tortured and killed for their faith in Christianity. This means that Allah started Christianity and allowed thousands of people to give their life for something that was all a deception. From what I've studied, the Qur’an states that a prophet cannot lie (deceive another by implication). So, here's something that I have yet to hear apologetics on. Allah is proclaimed to be truthful in all things. Yet, many Muslims believe that Allah saved Jesus from the death of the cross and will confirm that Allah only made it look as if Jesus died. Now, if I led a person to believe one thing, then did something else, it would be counted as deception on my part. I would have deceived a person, which causes them to believe a lie and creates a stumbling block. If we (humans) are held to present the truth at all times, then why would Allah be permitted to deceive mankind through the faked death of Jesus on the cross? I just find this to create an inconsistency in the character represented of Allah. 1 Like |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:07am On Jul 29, 2014 |
malvisguy212: mtsheew |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 9:12am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001:empty vessel. |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:15am On Jul 29, 2014 |
malvisguy212: empty vessel. Full vessel **muDont worry, the analysis continue later 2day 1 Like |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by malvisguy212: 9:20am On Jul 29, 2014 |
Rilwayne001:alright mr reporter, bring it on, one down 100 to go. you have not address the issue about all muslims is in hell.abi make I resurrect the thread? |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 9:31am On Jul 29, 2014 |
malvisguy212: alright mr reporter, bring it on, one down 100 to go. Which one is down  You never seize to make me laff boi. malvisguy212: you have not address the issue about all muslims is in hell.abi make I resurrect the thread? You must have missed the last post on the thread... Even the op admits that he need to study the verse very well, go there now and check my replies. then come back here and tell me what else you wish to know, and i will answer you here. i am sticking to my word not to follow or comment of the thread again. So in other for us not to derail this thread, you can open a thread for discussion.. then invite me with the topis name.. Dnt derail this one okay, debunk the op or better still shut ur mouth or else i will report you to the mod. and u know wah dat means.. 2 Likes |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by onetrack(m): 10:38am On Jul 29, 2014 |
I agree with the general idea of the OP. In my opinion, Jesus was one of several people who claimed to be the messiah in the first century AD. And like all the others, he was put to death by the Romans, who would then have left his body at the crucifixion site to be eaten by vultures. Hence there would be no body to bury, making it easy for Jesus' followers to claim that he ascended physically into heaven. 2 Likes |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 11:40am On Jul 29, 2014 |
omonuan:What is so Vague? Isaiah 7:4 says - The LORD GOD shall give you a great sign; A virgin shall bear a child and His name shall be called Immanuel meaning (God with Us) Luke 1:27-28 - Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and greeted her saying, "Mary, you are full of grace, the LORD is with you." Luke 1:29-32 - Mary was deeply worried, and Angel Gabriel said to her, "Mary You have found favour with God, you shall have a child and will call him JESUS, He will be great and shall be called, the Son of the Most High " - Luke 1:29-32 After Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, He(Gabriel) again appeared in a dream to Joseph(mary's husband to be) because Joseph wanted to cancel the wedding between Him and Mary when He(joseph) found out the Mary was pregnant.... Matthew 1:20-23 - Angel Gabriel told Joseph, "do not fear for Mary shall bear a Son and you shall call him JESUS{ Jehovah(God) saves} for this is the fulfilment of the prophesy of the Prophet saying, A Young Virgin shall brings forth a child and He will be IMMANUEL(God with Us) because He will free His People from Sin " - Matthew 1:20-23. If you still claim this was not refering to Jesus, then who again was born of a Virgin? Who was it reffering To? Perhaps, I think it is refering to either you (Omonuan) or your Jihadist OP at the top, Rilwayne001.... God bless!!! Shallom!!! |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Rilwayne001: 1:01pm On Jul 29, 2014 |
Macelliot: You are derailing mr. man |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Nobody: 4:31pm On Jul 29, 2014 |
Macelliot: Dude do not make this personal, please make your points without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Isaiah 7:14 was not during my time and I have never claimed to be a messiah. Nevertheless, it was not referring to Jesus either because like I previously indicated, Jesus was never given the name Immanuel neither was he ever called Immanuel. You are trying to use the time tested fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Since you claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfillment of the prophesy of "Immanuel," you should prove it. It behooves you to do so. Do not ask me if the verse was referring to me or anyone else because I can't negate a negative. Read your Bible and understand it. This could not have been a fulfillment of any prophesy because, it does not quite fit. Quoting Matthew 1:20-23 is a red herring because it doesn't solve or explain why Jesus was not called Immanuel. I am sure you know that the author of Mathew was freelancing. He plagiarized 76 percent of Mark almost word for word. None of the authors of Mark, Luke, John or Mathew was an eye witness to these events. The earliest gospel was Mark which was written more than 70 years after the death of Christ. Mark did not say that Jesus was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. In fact, only the Gospel of Mathew said so by implication. Luke 1:30-31: "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." So was he Jesus or Immanuel? Or did God change his mind? This is the problem with many retrofitting going on in the Bible, it creates the impression of contradictions. 1 Like |
| Re: Masterful Analysis On The Alleged Crucifiction Of Jesus Christ by Macelliot(m): 10:44am On Jul 31, 2014 |
omonuan: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!!! |
Learn To Say "Am Sorry" Even When You Are Right / Some Honest Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Needs To Read. / Yes, I Believe In The Holy Coconut
(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. 167 |