₦airaland Forum

About d Judas matter i read it up from more dan 5 Islamic websites now if those websites were lying dat means there is absolutely more confusion among u guys.
If they were incorrect now tell me. From where was Jesus raised up to heaven from? How did he leave Jerusalem to dat place? Who was crucified on the cross? Why did jew were purely against Jesus not reveal to us dat it was a lie dat it wasn't Jesus dat was crucified? And lastly who saw Jesus when he was being raised up to heaven.

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157 ]

^^Bro, dude is trying to derail, please don't allow him.

FriendChoice:
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Quran 4:157 ]

I know dat part of d quran very well now answer d remaining questions.

zionmade:
I know dat part of d quran very well now answer d remaining questions.

What's your question. Oh. I have seen it. The OP said we should not. Open new thread and mention me.

Rilwayne001:
^^Bro, dude is trying to derail, please don't allow him.

Am still waiting for u to tell me d exact portion of the bible i can build my base on. One thing i learnt from u guys is wen someone hooks u on d throat u cry out corrupted!!! Now tell me where u think was not corrupted.
And if u tell me d whole bible is corrupted den ur argument is flawed because it was all based on lies

FriendChoice:
What's your question. Oh. I have seen it. The OP said we should not. Open new thread and mention me.

Why are u running away from d questions address it. Am addressing d op so address those questions.
Jesus prophesied about the coming of mohammad. Ok but where was d prophecy written?

zionmade:
Ok just tell me where i would make reference to while addressing d op. Where exactly do u want me to pick my points from if not d bible.
If i was talking face to face with u den i wont even reference d bible because i have better ways of communication of which u wont even know wen am done wit u. Back to d point point out d books of d bible u think are not corrupted so i will stand on those ones and tackle ur ignorance

Maybe you need to go through this thread to see who you are messing with

https://www.nairaland.com/2172133/question-did-jesus-read-bible#down


You know it is practically impossible to communicate one on one considering fact that we might be world apart. You are cheap.

"i am cheap" i see u re costly now u dat claims wisdom dnt know how to face an argument leave personality out of it. My broda check my comments on nairaland am not always this humble before i start stepping on ur toes so badly. And moreover rilwayne displayed wisdom with his post dats why i am also being moderate. So if u dnt have answers to my questions just stay mute before i start being somehow insultive

^ dont know why you feel it is an insult to say "you are cheap". Dont know why you feel that way. Or maybe you just tried to divert?. Well, my response was simply addressing what you said that you would speak differently if it had been one on one (offline).

So i said that that's "cheap" excuse knowing fully well it is impossible since we all live world apart. Isnt my reply reasonable to what you said?.


Anyway, let that slide. If you are really good at it, you really want one on one offline debate, how about you challenge ACARDIP network openly for us to see?. ACARDIP is offline. And I am sure by the time they finish with you, you will have your tail btw your legs and reverse

Empiree:
^ dont know why you feel it is an insult to say "you are cheap". Dont know why you feel that way. Or maybe you just tried to divert?. Well, my response was simply addressing what you said that you would speak differently if it had been one on one (offline).

So i said that that's "cheap" excuse knowing fully well it is impossible since we all live world apart. Isnt my reply reasonable to what you said?.


Anyway, let that slide. If you are really good at it, you really want one on one offline debate, how about you challenge ACARDIP network openly for us to see?. ACARDIP is offline. And I am sure by the time they finish with you, you will have your tail btw your legs and reverse

I dnt know wat is acardip. Wen it comes to meeting a Muslim face to face it must be someone i really trust to avoid stories dat touch.
Meanwhile please answer my questions about ur believe in ascension of Jesus and d rest.
While i wait for Rilwayne to list d portion of d bible he thought its not corrupted.
There's must be an uncorrupted side where quran got some of its information

zionmade:
Am still waiting for u to tell me d exact portion of the bible i can build my base on. One thing i learnt from u guys is wen someone hooks u on d throat u cry out corrupted!!! Now tell me where u think was not corrupted.
And if u tell me d whole bible is corrupted den ur argument is flawed because it was all based on lies

Did i claim anywhere in the OP that the Bible is not corrupted? And funny enough I'm exposing it for the corruption and lies that it is, By showing you glaringly it's loopholes. my expectation from you is to prove me wrong by refutating my claims in other to uphold that it is indeed not corrupted or not full of lies written by unknown men. But seriously i really don't understand what you want. What is it?

zionmade:
Where will i mount my base on to address u. Is it on d same bible u call corrupted?

Are you afraid to prove that its not really corrupted? Of course you can always prove me wrong by simply addressing the OP.

I honestly don't understand your confusion here.

Dats d problem with islam if u want us to iron it out based on the bible den we should assume everything there is truth. U can comme to d bible pick some dat fits d teaching of islam and tell me they are truth and d one dat contradicts islam and tell me dat they are corrupted. Is it not clear to u dat someone is trying to deceive u.

How many times have you seen me quote the Bible to support islam? Even if others are doing it, I've already said on this thread that i don't do it because i later found the whole gospel to be problematic hence, the reason why i referred you to this link https://www.nairaland.com/3446032/problems-gospels-honest-survey-4evergod

You can go there and prove me wrong that the gospels are not problematic. All these are challenges which you ought to take instead of grasping at straw

Ok to even help u list all d books in the bible u think dat is not corrupted den i will address op purely based on dem

Sigh!! You still don't get it, do you?

zionmade:
U said John is d fakest portion of d bible but john 14:16 is where ur imams teach u dat Jesus prophesied about mohammad dat he will come and teach u all things

My Imams didn't teach me that Jesus was prophesied in what we called the gospel of John. It's your own imagination because some Muslims use to pick the verses to prove it. Not all Muslims do it, of which i am one. Although i used to think like that before until i found the Bible to be totally unreliable.

So please spare me this crap if trying to force me to believe in some portion of the Bible when actually i don't.

I U were told dat the person dat usedd word salam aleikum was Jesus. But d first place he used d word was wen he met his disciples in a closed room after he has resurrected and yet u guys were told he never resurrected.

Another assumption by some Muslims. Okay, I'm not that type of Muslim that believe so, will you now please stop grasping at this and for once address the OP?

www.nairaland.com/300566/jesus-islam-according-bible-judge read dat post by a muslim
Now please tell me where ur confusion is really coming from

That was by another Muslim and not by me. He's writing what he believes and not what i believe. So i suppose you are the confused one here because you are finding every way to derail the OP by bringing all these silly nonsense up. For once, address the OP.

zionmade:
Ok just tell me where i would make reference to while addressing d op. Where exactly do u want me to pick my points from if not d bible.

You are not to make any reference, you are to prove all the lies have been pointing out in the Bible wrong by telling us out it should really have been. Start from this thread how and really why the gospels are not problematic and how i have been lying to deceive the Christians and Muslims since that what you believe I'm doing here. Then come down to this thread from the first page and prove all the lies have been lying wrong. Prove to us that Jesus received a decent burial indeed and that he was buried in a tomb indeed. Just get ready to read me because I'm not done yet.

If i was talking face to face with u den i wont even reference d bible because i have better ways of communication of which u wont even know wen am done wit u.

What better ways do you have in real life that you don't have here? It's like you have an agenda hence the reason why you want the discussion to be out of nairaland.

Back to d point point out d books of d bible u think are not corrupted so i will stand on those ones and tackle ur ignorance

Rilwayne001:
Did i claim anywhere in the OP that the Bible is not corrupted? And funny enough I'm exposing it for the corruption and lies that it is, By showing you glaringly it's loopholes. my expectation from you is to prove me wrong by refutating my claims in other to uphold that it is indeed not corrupted or not full of lies written by unknown men. But seriously i really don't understand what you want. What is it?

You claimed to be a muslim what u copied and pasted up there was from an atheist view. A true muslim never says that the whole bible is unreliable because the bible consists of torah and the gospel. And torah is a major foundation in Islam. D same torah that the jews who are not Christians use is the old testament in the bible. So d way am looking at u u are an atheist who covers up with being a muslim.

Rilwayne001:
Are you afraid to prove that its not really corrupted? Of course you can always prove me wrong by simply addressing the OP.

I honestly don't understand your confusion here.



How many times have you seen me quote the Bible to support islam? Even if others are doing it, I've already said on this thread that i don't do it because i later found the whole gospel to be problematic hence, the reason why i referred you to this link https://www.nairaland.com/3446032/problems-gospels-honest-survey-4evergod

You can go there and prove me wrong that the gospels are not problematic. All these are challenges which you ought to take instead of grasping at straw



Sigh!! You still don't get it, do you?

I have not started facing ur questions directly because i wont bother myself doing dat if u have an atheist view rather than an islam view of the bible. It will be furtile. I enjky meeting atheist one on one because as i said before i can communicate to someone without opening my mouth. That is d highest form of communication.
If u re a true muslim den tell me where exactly u believe that islam took its stand from in relation to the torah or the gospel. So i can mount my base there. That is because my analysis of events stems from the information from the bible, analogy from artifacts and historical reviews of the Jews themselves who were not even Christians

Rilwayne001:
My Imams didn't teach me that Jesus was prophesied in what we called the gospel of John. It's your own imagination because some Muslims use to pick the verses to prove it. Not all Muslims do it, of which i am one. Although i used to think like that before until i found the Bible to be totally unreliable.

So please spare me this crap if trying to force me to believe in some portion of the Bible when actually i don't.



Another assumption by some Muslims. Okay, I'm not that type of Muslim that believe so, will you now please stop grasping at this and for once address the OP?



That was by another Muslim and not by me. He's writing what he believes and not what i believe. So i suppose you are the confused one here because you are finding every way to derail the OP by bringing all these silly nonsense up. For once, address the OP.

I believe we are using intellectual terms here so please dnt use some terms like silly, crap or nonsense. When i want to be civil in my interaction i do that strictly and when i want to be d other way round i also ensure i over do it.

Now i sat down to learn islam from an hausa educated muslim (he taught me) i also listen to messages from imams from his phone. Now if u re a yoruba muslim den i know where u are coming from. Mixing up ur educative imagination into islam just to make ur belief logical is unaccepted by islam itself.

Now the quran referenced d bible just like new testament referenced the torah. If dats a lie tell me its torah alone den i will stand on torah on clear u. But for u to tell me to leave torah and bible and address ur issue which no problem problem matter who wrote it gathered d information from me the bible are the den u re contradicting ur premise

I know why u dnt want me to go d bible way because u know urself dat wen i start dissecting d life death and resurrection of Jesus it will be an overwhelming evidence of d lies of d quran and mohammad. Dat is why islam itself termed it corrupt.
Den my question it, where was d life of Jesus as believed by mohammad documented?

zionmade:
You claimed to be a muslim what u copied and pasted up there was from an atheist view.

What do you mean from an atheist view? So are you now saying, anyone that is skeptic of the Bible is an atheist? And atheist or whatever view or not, are you finding it hard to address? If yes, simply say you can't and stop this merry go round. If no, then start addressing the points instead of cowardly derailing the whole thread.

A true muslim never says that the whole bible is unreliable

Do you now have the apparatus to determine a true Muslim?

because the bible consists of torah and the gospel. And torah is a major foundation in Islam. D same torah that the jews who are not Christians use is the old testament in the bible. So d way am looking at u u are an atheist who covers up with being a muslim.

If you want to discuss this, kindly come here instead of trying to detail this.

Rilwayne001:
You are not to make any reference, you are to prove all the lies have been pointing out in the Bible wrong by telling us out it should really have been. Start from this thread how and really why the gospels are not problematic and how i have been lying to deceive the Christians and Muslims since that what you believe I'm doing here. Then come down to this thread from the first page and prove all the lies have been lying wrong. Prove to us that Jesus received a decent burial indeed and that he was buried in a tomb indeed. Just get ready to read me because I'm not done yet.



What better ways do you have in real life that you don't have here? It's like you have an agenda hence the reason why you want the discussion to be out of nairaland.

Why i prefer face to face? Yes its because i have an ulterior motive. There is a level of communication dat omly christians at a high level use. I dnt need to say a word but i will address ur spirit and dat is all. I almost got a school in d north into riot wen i used on a muslim girl tormented by evil spirit. I was about to issue d last word before my christian colleague shouted stop it. Even d imam in d school had to tell me to step away because he knew dat d devil was about to come out. My brother there is a higher level of communication. D same one Jesus used on paul dat turned paul from killing christians to becoming d most revered Christian. Its only done face to face. O

zionmade:
I have not started facing ur questions directly because i wont bother myself doing dat if u have an atheist view rather than an islam view of the bible.

What is an atheist and the Islamic view of the Bible? Do Muslims believe in the Christian Bible? It's like you are confused than i had thought.

It will be furtile.

What will be futile? That you can't refute the points raised so far on the thread? And even saying the Muslims view of the Bible, do Muslims believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus?

I enjky meeting atheist one on one because as i said before i can communicate to someone without opening my mouth. That is d highest form of communication.
If u re a true muslim den tell me where exactly u believe that islam took its stand from in relation to the torah or the gospel. So i can mount my base there.

Let's discuss that here https://www.nairaland.com/2172133/question-did-jesus-read-bible#down and not this thread please. You are derailing this already.

That is because my analysis of events stems from the information from the bible, analogy from artifacts and historical reviews of the Jews themselves who were not even Christians

And are my own analysis so far outside the Bible

zionmade:
I believe we are using intellectual terms here so please dnt use some terms like silly, crap or nonsense. When i want to be civil in my interaction i do that strictly and when i want to be d other way round i also ensure i over do it.

I don't think those words are insult. Trying to force on me what i didn't say or believe is indeed silly and nonsense.

Now i sat down to learn islam from an hausa educated muslim (he taught me) i also listen to messages from imams from his phone. Now if u re a yoruba muslim den i know where u are coming from. Mixing up ur educative imagination into islam just to make ur belief logical is unaccepted by islam itself.

Another crappy nonsense that has nothing to do with the thread.

Now the quran referenced d bible just like new testament referenced the torah. If dats a lie tell me its torah alone den i will stand on torah on clear u. But for u to tell me to leave torah and bible and address ur issue which no problem problem matter who wrote it gathered d information from me the bible are the den u re contradicting ur premise

The Quran referenced the gospel according to Jesus and not according to Matthew, John, Luke, mark and so on. Again, let's discuss that here https://www.nairaland.com/2172133/question-did-jesus-read-bible#down

I know why u dnt want me to go d bible way because u know urself dat wen i start dissecting d life death and resurrection of Jesus it will be an overwhelming evidence of d lies of d quran and mohammad. Dat is why islam itself termed it corrupt.

Oh please start and stop these empty boasting. Start from the letters of paul, is Paul really a witness? Then go to the points i have raised so far including the glaring contradiction i mentioned on the first page of this thread. Then tell us how Jesus had a decent burial and how he was indeed buried in a tomb.

Start now and stop derailing.

Den my question it, where was d life of Jesus as believed by mohammad documented?

This is totally different from the topic of this thread. Open a thread and we will address it after you must have addressed this current discussion.

zionmade:
Why i prefer face to face? Yes its because i have an ulterior motive. There is a level of communication dat omly christians at a high level use. I dnt need to say a word but i will address ur spirit and dat is all. I almost got a school in d north into riot wen i used on a muslim girl tormented by evil spirit. I was about to issue d last word before my christian colleague shouted stop it. Even d imam in d school had to tell me to step away because he knew dat d devil was about to come out. My brother there is a higher level of communication. D same one Jesus used on paul dat turned paul from killing christians to becoming d most revered Christian. Its only done face to face. O

Save this cork and bull story for your fellow gullible christard.
I will pass.

Rilwayne001:
What do you mean from an atheist view? So are you now saying, anyone that is skeptic of the Bible is an atheist? And atheist or whatever view or not, are you finding it hard to address? If yes, simply say you can't and stop this merry go round. If no, then start addressing the points instead of cowardly derailing the whole thread.



Do you now have the apparatus to determine a true Muslim?



If you want to discuss this, kindly come here instead of trying to detail this.

not I have also read d post very well. Where empiree was trying to tell us wen Matthew mark and d others we're written. the thread was not an intellectual write up unlike dis one. How will u ask me if Jesus read d bible? Of course not. But d few times he taught in d synagogue he read from a scroll. Which contains d torah. Now d bible was written years after Jesus was dead and it was a compilation of manuscripts from fragments of scrolls here and there. D book of luke and acts were written by luke but was compiled into one book around ad 70. Now d bible has mistakes during d translation stage(and not compilation stage) d reason being dat a hebrew word can have up to 5 english meaning.

zionmade:
not I have also read d post very well. Where empiree was trying to tell us wen Matthew mark and d others we're written. the thread was not an intellectual write up unlike dis one. How will u ask me if Jesus read d bible? Of course not. But d few times he taught in d synagogue he read from a scroll. Which contains d torah. Now d bible was written years after Jesus was dead and it was a compilation of manuscripts from fragments of scrolls here and there. D book of luke and acts were written by luke but was compiled into one book around ad 70. Now d bible has mistakes during d translation stage(and not compilation stage) d reason being dat a hebrew word can have up to 5 english meaning.

Go to that thread and refute him. This thread is for another thing which you are cowardly shying away from.

Rilwayne001:
Save this cork and bull story for your fellow gullible christard.
I will pass.

Now u call it cork and bull story. Its a lie abi. I put d story there as a litmus test and u gave me d answer i expected. In Islam u re subjected to believing something and anything outside dat is a lie. Dat is why u re indoctrinated into dat doctrine right from d enfanthood. Why cant u counter wat i said without calling it a lie. And how do u know its a lie d same way u know d bible was corrupted.

Islam never believes in d death and resurrection of Jesus and u re still scared of telling me d nonsense u believe dat Jesus was impersonated and killed all by d work of allah? Dnt be scared tell me d bullshit lies u believe let me tackle it. If u tell me wat dnt believe also tell me wat u believe and it will be complete.
According to ur Islam version d gospel Jesus preached was not documented but by inspiration
According to islamic scholars d gospel was read from a manuscript which sometimes were from psalms written by ur dauda or from Isaiah whom ur religion failed to recognize because he clearly prophesied on the life and death of Jesus.
Now d law moses got was written by God himself on a stone. Judaism and Christianity believes dis but ur version of islam rejects all u re trying to tell me is there is no other written documentary apart from quran. Bro even sultan of sokoto will disown u

Rilwayne001:
Go to that thread and refute him. This thread is for another thing which you are cowardly shying away from.

Now if i go to dat thread i might turn it into war because there might be armature minds who may insult me or my Jesus and trust me no muslim will like to know wat i think about mohammad. Expect me in d thread by evening. And back to dis. WHAT DO U BELIEVE

zionmade:
Now u call it cork and bull story. Its a lie abi. I put d story there as a litmus test and u gave me d answer i expected. In Islam u re subjected to believing something and anything outside dat is a lie. Dat is why u re indoctrinated into dat doctrine right from d enfanthood. Why cant u counter wat i said without calling it a lie. And how do u know its a lie d same way u know d bible was corrupted.

What if i tell you that my little that almost fell from 2 storey building hanged in the air after I shouted La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah ? That shows the efficacy of the name of Allah.

Islam never believes in d death and resurrection of Jesus and

And since you believe it, prove it historically by Starting from the letters of paul, is Paul really a witness? Then go to the points i have raised so far including the glaring contradiction i mentioned on the first page of this thread. Then tell us how Jesus had a decent burial and how he was indeed buried in a tomb.

If it's too hard for you to do, is it still hard for you to shut up and find somewhere else to go?

u re still scared of telling me d nonsense u believe dat Jesus was impersonated and killed all by d work of allah? Dnt be scared tell me d bullshit lies u believe let me tackle it. If u tell me wat dnt believe also tell me wat u believe and it will be complete.
According to ur Islam version d gospel Jesus preached was not documented but by inspiration According to islamic scholars d gospel was read from a manuscript which sometimes were from psalms written by ur dauda or from Isaiah whom ur religion failed to recognize because he clearly prophesied on the life and death of Jesus. Now d law moses got was written by God himself on a stone. Judaism and Christianity believes dis but ur version of islam rejects all u re trying to tell me is there is no other written documentary apart from quran. Bro even sultan of sokoto will disown u

Sigh

zionmade:
Now if i go to dat thread i might turn it into war because there might be armature minds who may insult me or my Jesus and trust me no muslim will like to know wat i think about mohammad. Expect me in d thread by evening. And back to dis. WHAT DO U BELIEVE

What do i believe as how? I should be asking you:

After resurrection where did Jesus ask the disciples to meet him, Galilee or Jerusalem?

is Paul really a witness to the resurrection?

Did Jesus receive a decent burial?

Was he buried in the tomb indeed?

These are questions you ought to be answering, but because you are a coward that have no balls, you are hell bent on derailing.

I'm sorry, i will have to ignore you if yet you refuse to address the above questions.

Thank you.

Rilwayne001:
What if i tell you that my little that almost fell from 2 storey building hanged in the air after I shouted La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah ? That shows the efficacy of the name of Allah.

And since you believe it, prove it historically by Starting from the letters of paul, is Paul really a witness? Then go to the points i have raised so far including the glaring contradiction i mentioned on the first page of this thread. Then tell us how Jesus had a decent burial and how he was indeed buried in a tomb.

If it's too hard for you to do, is it still hard for you to shut up and find somewhere else to go?



Sigh

Now u re trying to piss me off by ur shut up and go elsewhere broda am not going elsewhere Stand up for dat rubbish mohammad taught u to believe
Paul was alive wen Jesus walked ond face of d earth but he was a professor aka pharisee at dat time. Yes he was there during dat period. No he was not a disciple of Jesus and was not a worthy physical witness. But after he encountered Jesus, he also communed with the disciples who expounded to him the ministry of Jesus and through d work of d Holyspirit he had a full understanding of Jesus mission

Jesus was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of arimanthea and he didnt have a decent burial because his disciples were scattered and scampered to hiding in fear. That tomb was guarded by the roman soldiers (jews have never disputed this fact even though they are against Christianity). D jews made it clear that if d body of Jesus escaped dat tomb it would be a disaster. D very site of dat tomb is disputed in UN dat it belongs to palestine nation.

zionmade:
Now u re trying to piss me off by ur shut up and go elsewhere

I'm only saying you should go elsewhere if you cannot address the topic of the thread, if you can, then stay and address it.

broda am not going elsewhere Stand up for dat rubbish mohammad taught u to believe

Good you are staying. Now start by answering these questions: After resurrection where did Jesus ask the disciples to meet him, Galilee or Jerusalem?

is Paul really a witness to the resurrection?

Did Jesus receive a decent burial?

Was he buried in the tomb indeed?

Paul was alive wen Jesus walked ond face of d earth but he was a professor aka pharisee at dat time.Yes he was there during dat period.

Okay.

No he was not a disciple of Jesus and was not a worthy physical witness. But after he encountered Jesus, he also communed with the disciples who expounded to him the ministry of Jesus and through d work of d Holyspirit he had a full understanding of Jesus mission

Now, the more reason why i talk about Paul on the first page is to show that the resurrection story is a lie that was edited and rebranded over time. Here again: according to 1 Cor. 15:3-8 Paul seems to be giving an exhaustive account of the people to whom Jesus appeared after being raised. The reason for thinking this is that after listing all the others who saw Jesus, Paul indicates that he was the “last of all.” This is frequently understood, rightly I think, to mean that he is giving the fullest list he can. But then the list is striking indeed, in no small measure because Paul doesn’t mention any women. In the Gospels it is women who discover the empty tomb, and in two of the Gospels—Matthew and John—it is women who first see Jesus alive afterward. But Paul never says anything about anyone discovering an empty tomb, and he doesn’t mention any resurrection appearances to women —either here or in any other passage of his writings.

Paul being the earliest source that talk about the resurrection story said nothing about the women that first discovered the tomb nor did it mention the EMPTY TOMB, what does that tells you? To further complicate matters he indicates that he did not devise the statements himself but that he “received” it from others. Whereas our earliest Gospel, (Mark) narrates the discovery of an empty tomb without discussing any of the appearances like Paul had done. This further shows that, the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after his death—probably originated independently of one another and were put together as a single tradition only later—for example, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke . If this is the case, then the stories of Jesus’s resurrection were indeed being expanded, embellished, modified, and possibly even invented in the long process of their being told and retold over the years.

Jesus was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of arimanthea and he didnt have a decent burial because his disciples were scattered and scampered to hiding in fear.

I will have to repeat myself again here:

Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified. Why, after Jesus is dead, is he suddenly risking himself (as implied by the fact that he had to gather up his courage) and seeking to do an act of mercy by arranging for a decent burial for Jesus’s corpse? Mark gives us no clue. My hunch is that the trial narrative and the burial narrative come from different sets of traditions inherited by Mark. Or did Mark simply invent one of the two traditions himself and overlook the apparent discrepancy?

In any event, a burial by Joseph is clearly a historical problem in light of other passages just within the New Testament. I pointed out earlier that Paul shows no evidence of knowing anything about a Joseph of Arimathea or Jesus’s burial by a “respected member of the council.” This datum was not included in the very early creed that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and if the author of that creed had known such a thing, he surely would have included it, since without naming the person who buried Jesus, as we have seen, he created an imbalance with the second portion of the creed where he does name the person to whom Jesus appeared (Cephas). Thus, this early creed knows nothing about Joseph. And Paul also betrays no knowledge of him.

Moreover, another tradition of Jesus’s burial says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. As I pointed out earlier, the book of Acts was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. When writing Luke, this unknown author (we obviously call him Luke, but we don’t know who he really was) used a number of earlier written and oral sources for his stories, as he himself indicates. Scholars today are convinced that one of his sources was the Gospel of Mark, and so Luke includes the story of Joseph of Arimathea in his version of Jesus’s death and resurrection. When Luke wrote his second volume, the book of Acts, he had yet other sources available to him. Acts is not about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus but about the spread of the Christian church throughout the Roman empire afterward. About one- fourth of the book of Acts consists of speeches made by its main characters, mainly Peter and Paul—speeches, for example, to convert people to believe in Jesus or to instruct those who already believe.

That tomb was guarded by the roman soldiers (jews have never disputed this fact even though they are against Christianity). D jews made it clear that if d body of Jesus escaped dat tomb it would be a disaster.

On this^, below is one of old posts.

The author of Matthew on the other hand 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 an earthquake: Matthew 28.2.

Notice that Matthew solves one riddle left by Mark by having the angel move the stone.

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 in mark 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:

Matthew 28.11-15 " 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. When the chief priests had met with the elders and DEVISED A PLAN, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away [size=13pt] WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP [/size] .' 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 ." –

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. [u] 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 is the author of Matthew could himself possibly know of the dastardly plan hatched by the chief priests and elders? [/b]

meanwhile I'm still coming back to the tomb story by weekend as we still have a long way to go on this thread.

D very site of dat tomb is disputed in UN dat it belongs to palestine nation.

Pfttt

Rilwayne001:
I'm only saying you should go elsewhere if you cannot address the topic of the thread, if you can, then stay and address it.



Good you are staying. Now start by answering these questions: After resurrection where did Jesus ask the disciples to meet him, Galilee or Jerusalem?

is Paul really a witness to the resurrection?

Did Jesus receive a decent burial?

Was he buried in the tomb indeed?



Okay.



Now, the more reason why i talk about Paul on the first page is to show that the resurrection story is a lie that was edited and rebranded over time. Here again: according to 1 Cor. 15:3-8 Paul seems to be giving an exhaustive account of the people to whom Jesus appeared after being raised. The reason for thinking this is that after listing all the others who saw Jesus, Paul indicates that he was the “last of all.” This is frequently understood, rightly I think, to mean that he is giving the fullest list he can. But then the list is striking indeed, in no small measure because Paul doesn’t mention any women. In the Gospels it is women who discover the empty tomb, and in two of the Gospels—Matthew and John—it is women who first see Jesus alive afterward. But Paul never says anything about anyone discovering an empty tomb, and he doesn’t mention any resurrection appearances to women —either here or in any other passage of his writings.

Paul being the earliest source that talk about the resurrection story said nothing about the women that first discovered the tomb nor did it mention the EMPTY TOMB, what does that tells you? To further complicate matters he indicates that he did not devise the statements himself but that he “received” it from others. Whereas our earliest Gospel, (Mark) narrates the discovery of an empty tomb without discussing any of the appearances like Paul had done. This further shows that, the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after his death—probably originated independently of one another and were put together as a single tradition only later—for example, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke . If this is the case, then the stories of Jesus’s resurrection were indeed being expanded, embellished, modified, and possibly even invented in the long process of their being told and retold over the years.



I will have to repeat myself again here:

Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified. Why, after Jesus is dead, is he suddenly risking himself (as implied by the fact that he had to gather up his courage) and seeking to do an act of mercy by arranging for a decent burial for Jesus’s corpse? Mark gives us no clue. My hunch is that the trial narrative and the burial narrative come from different sets of traditions inherited by Mark. Or did Mark simply invent one of the two traditions himself and overlook the apparent discrepancy?

In any event, a burial by Joseph is clearly a historical problem in light of other passages just within the New Testament. I pointed out earlier that Paul shows no evidence of knowing anything about a Joseph of Arimathea or Jesus’s burial by a “respected member of the council.” This datum was not included in the very early creed that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and if the author of that creed had known such a thing, he surely would have included it, since without naming the person who buried Jesus, as we have seen, he created an imbalance with the second portion of the creed where he does name the person to whom Jesus appeared (Cephas). Thus, this early creed knows nothing about Joseph. And Paul also betrays no knowledge of him.

Moreover, another tradition of Jesus’s burial says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. As I pointed out earlier, the book of Acts was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. When writing Luke, this unknown author (we obviously call him Luke, but we don’t know who he really was) used a number of earlier written and oral sources for his stories, as he himself indicates. Scholars today are convinced that one of his sources was the Gospel of Mark, and so Luke includes the story of Joseph of Arimathea in his version of Jesus’s death and resurrection. When Luke wrote his second volume, the book of Acts, he had yet other sources available to him. Acts is not about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus but about the spread of the Christian church throughout the Roman empire afterward. About one- fourth of the book of Acts consists of speeches made by its main characters, mainly Peter and Paul—speeches, for example, to convert people to believe in Jesus or to instruct those who already believe.




On this^, below is one of old posts.

The author of Matthew on the other hand 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 an earthquake: Matthew 28.2.

Notice that Matthew solves one riddle left by Mark by having the angel move the stone.

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 in mark 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:

Matthew 28.11-15 " 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. When the chief priests had met with the elders and DEVISED A PLAN, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away [size=13pt] WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP [/size] .' 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 ." –

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. [u] 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 is the author of Matthew could himself possibly know of the dastardly plan hatched by the chief priests and elders? [/b]

meanwhile I'm still coming back to the tomb story by weekend as we still have a long way to go on this thread.



Pfttt

Bros stop copying and pasting bring out ur points one after d other
On the issue of 1st corr 15:3 paul didnt give an exhaustive list of those who saw Christ. And it is boldly written in verse 4 "according to the scriptures" in reference of d account of luke, Matthew and john(if u open a reference bible u will see it) showing u wat i said before dat paul himself was not a physical witness. Paul referenced to his encounter with Jesus on his way to damascua (acts 9:4) to and not after his resurrection. Pls always use a reference bible anytime u want to find ur Fault. As at d time paul wrote dat epistle he was d last person dat encountered Jesus. If am clear on this bring up ur next question