Jesus was crucified according to historia

Hasan,

   I don't have anything "against" Islam, I simply believe that it is not a true Abrahamic religion and that Allah is not the same God that is worshipped by Jews and Christians. A "blood sacrifice" is a sacrifice where a living creature is slaughtered for religious reasons, you yourself call it an "animal sacrifice" in your reply. Whether or not it absolves sins I have no idea. I do know that Muslims believe the "Black Stone" has the power to forgive sins and that on Judgment Day it will "have eyes to see" and a "mouth to testify" for those who have touched it with "sincerity."
   In Judaism and Christianity we no longer sacrifice animals in our religious rites as the ancients did, we also do not believe that any earthly object, or idol, has any power, let alone the power to absolve someone from their sins. That belongs to God Himself.
   And the idea that "Ibrahim" (Abu Raheem) and Ishmael "built" the original Kaaba in Mecca is simply ludicrous. Abraham's travels are followed closely in the Bible and he never went anywhere near southern Arabia. This is just another Muslim fabrication to connect Biblical persons with pagan sites, such as the Kaaba, in Arabia and elsewhere, to make a connection with the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There is not the slightest proof that any monotheistic religion existed in Arabia before Muhammad had his "revelations" in the 7th century A.D.
   It is the ssame as the Muslim belief that the "furthest mosque" spoken of in the Qur'an was in Jerusalem. During the life of Muhammad there were NO mosques of any kind in Israel (or "Palestine" if you wish). Jerusalem is named 669 times in the Bible, Jerusalem is mentioned 0 Times in the Qur'an, "Palestine" isn't mentioned either. You would think that the "third holiest city" in Islam would be named at least ONCE in the Qur'an, but it's not.
   The Qur'an is filled with discrepancies from the number of days it took God to create the world to the many different ways that the Qur'an says Muslims should treat the "People of the Book." The Qur'an has no linear qualities, contains no geneaologies of Biblical characters, has no "prophecies" at all, it is arranged in a completely haphazard way, statements and stories are repeated many times. It even shows differences in the way and style that it is written from the Surahs "revealed" to Muhammad in Mecca to the later Surahs "revealed" in Medina. I would expect a "divine revelation" to be more carefully composed and have the same style from beginning to end.
   So for these and many other reasons I have absolutely no belief that Islam is anything more than a repackaged 7th century pagan Arabic religion. Even the name of "Allah" was used in pagan times for God. EVERY element of the "Hajj" is pre-Islamic in origin. And, in order to placate the Quryash tribe when Muhammad began to have his "revelations" he even included the "Daughters of Allah", Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, in his earliest "revelations." This was later removed and was blamed as the "work" of "Satan."
   But this wasn't the only time that "revelations" changed to suit a new need. The original "Qibla" was Jerusalem, with the idea that Jews would recognize him as a true "prophet," but, when the Jews rejected his "prophethood," the "Qibla" was changed to Mecca, the "excuse" for this being some kind of "test" of Muslim faith.
   The only "book" that has serious and manifold differences with both the Old and New Testaments is the Qur'an. So the idea that Jews and Christians "corrupted" their own religions is simply the only way to explain these fundamental differences between Islam, which did not exist prior to the 7th century A.D., and Judaism and Christianity, which existed thousands of years earlier in the case of Judaism and centuries later in the case of Christianity.
   So I really don't see any need to continue this endless argument about each of our religions. In the Bible there are never any changes in divine "revelation," Prophecies are made and prophecies are fulfilled, exactly as prophesied. That is the measure of a true prophet in the Bible, and as we have seen before, Muhammad never made ANY "prophecies" at all, so why he is called a "prophet" I have no idea.
   I am quite content that my faith in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit together make the Holy Trinity, the true and only God. Whether you understand the concept of the Trinity is not my problem, if you want to think of it as three "gods" you are welcome to, I'm not going to try and change your mind.
   I guess when Judgement Day comes we will find out who was right and who was wrong, won't we?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 03 December 2012 at 2:52am

I am responding to Andalus' responses. I put Empiricist before my response. They may have been responded to earlier- I did not read all the pages.

Andalus wrote: believer wrote: No serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus Christ. Atheist scholars and Christians alike acknowledge the reality and impact of his life. But the three great religions with roots in the Middle East�Judaism, Islam and Christianity�divide over the death of Jesus and what it means. The final moment in the life of Jesus�the moment he died--was the all-important moment. That's what this book addresses: What does the Christian Bible teach about why Jesus suffered so much and died? <H4>The Denial by Muslims</H4> Nothing is more relevant or controversial today. Islam affirms that Jesus lived, but most Muslims have been taught that Jesus was not crucified. For example, one Sunni Muslim says, �Muslims believe that Allah saved the Messiah from the ignominy of crucifixion.� [1"> Another adds, �We honor [Jesus] more than you [Christians] do. . . . We refuse to believe that God would permit him to suffer death on the cross.� [2"> The place in the Qur'an that provides the basis for this denial of the crucifixion (and resurrection) is a discussion of supposed Jewish errors: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger�They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt therefore; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise. There is not one of the People of the Scripture [Jews] but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them. [3">� � � Even Christians beleive that Jesus was resurrected, also a scheme that included the "error" of the Jews who wanted him executed. I find the skeptical impilication of the word chosen by the mentally challenged author to be of great humour, "supposed Jewish errors". Empiricist - Maybe the error was that Jesus had done no wrong and Pilate washed his hands of it and the blood was on the Jew's and their offspring's hands. And it was done at night because of fear of people uprising during the day. The night people were not so good people and wanted the thief Barrabas released.   � � � � � � The Witness of Non-Christian History However, those who were much closer to the historical situation than Mohammed (who was born in a.d. 571) reported that Jesus died by crucifixion. � Revelation�gives a more accurate account, hence it is almost nonsensical to say that 571 ACE would not be as accurate as 100-300 ACE. A "historical" account near the source is only as good as the reliablity of the witness, which in this case if the myriad of MSS that floated around dervived from unknown authors. � �Empiricist - In the case of Mohammed, it is unlikely he would have any knowledge of it anyway. How would he have known? He would only have read the current writings, and there could be much bogus information around at the time, trying to discredit the growing Christian religion. If you say Allah told Mohammed, how do you know that? The Quran? How do you know the Quran is true? Because it says so? That is circular logic. Do you know the history of the Quran? It has had several revisions, and much was written in Aramaic originally. It appears to have started as a collection of both Christian and Jewish writings, not by Mohammed. � These witnesses include non-Christian historians who had no motive to fabricate Christ's death. For example, the Roman historian, Tacitus (who was born in a.d 55), wrote in his Annals (15:44) an explanation of how Nero, the emperor (who died in a.d 68) blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in order to deflect rumors that he had started the blaze. In this passage Tacitus alludes to a fact which no one disputed: Christ had been crucified under Pontius Pilate: All human efforts . . . of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus , and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. [4"> � Tacitus did not write as a first handwittness to the "alleged" event, he simply wore what others said about the group in question. In other words, this cannot be used as a historical witness, and no true historian would make this claim. It is simply another unvalidated, and unverifable writing from the first century that does not allow us to have any close look from a historical view. � Empiricist- Tacitus is no true historian? You picked the wrong one to say that about. He is one of the most reliable of the period according to The Cambridge Ancient History. You can be assured it happened if Tacitus wrote it. Tacitus used reliable sources and warned of using hearsay. And he would not use Christian sources if he was denouncing them, would he??? Also if Tacitus was not sure of something, he said so. Please provide one reputable source that says Tacitus was not accurate. You will not be able to. � � � It was common and undisputed knowledge in the second half of the first century that Jesus Christ had been crucified. If there were any question that he had died in this way, it would have been eagerly disputed wherever Christians preached. But it wasn't. The fact of his death by crucifixion was not questioned. � � The author has just tried to hood wink us. The first assertion is simply that, an assertion, which has a conclusion that was given by nothing more than a "handwave".� Since the majortiy of what as actually circuylated is not gone, one can only make such a claim about the traditions that have been preserved. This silly claim takes the odd assumption that what we have now is exactly what everyone read, practiced, and followed. Modern research tells us that the old sunday school fable about how "real" Christianity has been the same going all the way back to the apostles is pure rubbish. � Empiricist- no- Tacitus confirms it happened, and there were plenty of witnesses. No reason to doubt the New Testament of today.� � <H4>Abundant Eyewitnesses and the Absence of Denial</H4> If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ's suffering and death. � � � the conclusion "it had to be created overnight" is nothing mroe than juvenile handwaving. It does not follow from the premise, and it begs the question: How do you know what was taught within weeks.� The answer: The quthor does not have a real clue. And this is why he just "handwaved" the conclusion. � � Empiricist- read the account in the Bible- many dead were raised after Jesus died. That would get some attention. The curtain in the temple was torn. etc. It had to be a major event. The disciples were given the charge and power of holy spirit to go and preach and heal when Jesus came back and taught them. No handwaving here. � � Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalem�the very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. � � 1) Islam does not teach that a "crucifiction" did not necessarily take place, it simply says that Jesus did not die in the event. 2) Many things were being taught in late second temple period. MOdern research tells us that your tenents were only a drop in the bubket of the on going beliefs of the day. So once more, proof needs to be shown, and argued, that your tenants were the only core teaching being spread. Assumpions do not count. � Empiricist- Well, given the long lasting Christian teachings and the bible, it looks like there must have been quite a bit of teaching and it stuck. Doesn't really matter- it is moot at this point. Also what does modern research tell us about the accuracy of the bible? How about the accuracy of the Quran? Or do you not even question it?� � As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, this new religion was a distortion of the Jewish faith, and, in fact, was blasphemy, since Christians claimed that Jesus was himself the Son of God (Mark 14:61-64). �We have a law,� the Jewish leaders said to Pilate, �and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God� (John 19:7). � � Argue that the book of John is a verifiable, and an authenticated witness to Jesus. (Not that I agree with the interpretation, but why argue about something that cannot even be authentocated with even the slighets of confidence?) � Empiricist- I'm afraid it is authenticated much more than the Quran. � The fact is that Christians openly based their faith on the fact that Jesus was publicly tried, condemned, executed, and raised from the dead. � � Bold. That is not a fact. Empiricist- I do think there was a bit more to it than that- Jesus performed several miracles so people would believe, in addition to the above. But Christians were killed brutally to try to stop them, per Tacitus above. Nero did many cruel tortures to the Christians, more that appropriate for their so-called crime of firing the city. The Christians admitted being Christian and new they would die for it. They must have had strong beliefs to do that. � � � �They spoke this way within weeks after these events, when thousands of people who opposed this faith could have proved it wrong, if Jesus had not died. � � � � � Prove it. � �Why don't you disprove it? � �They could have gone to Pilate the governor or Herod the king or the Jewish Council or the soldiers or other witnesses of the crucifixion and gotten proof that he had not been condemned or crucified the way Christians said he was. � � Why? � � � �But, in fact, no one did that. Everyone in Jerusalem knew that Jesus had been crucified, and many had watched him die. The resurrection was disputed, but not the crucifixion. � � � A cricifiction does not imply that Jesus did or did not die from it. � There are not enough witnesses from the period to give us an accurate account. � � � � <snip irrelevant drivel> appealing to emotion is intellectually bankrupt. � Empiricist- I think they were pretty good at insuring you were dead if you were crucified. According to experts about the accounts in the bible, Jesus died on the cross. (getting stabbed by the soldier, fluid coming out, etc).� � <H4>An Improbable Myth</H4> Moreover why would a group of Jews (for all the first Christians were Jews by birth) fabricate the death of Christ? � Strawman argument, no one has argued otherwise. � � � The Christians had nothing to gain from creating the story of a crucified Messiah. � � � � Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what gain they might. or might not have had.�A tradition may or may not offer a gain if believed in. A tradition can be embraced without any change of benefit between the believer and the tradition. In this case, the crucifiction was the element to explain the means for God to forgive us. So the above statement is really irrelevant and�does not touch upon the actual scenerio. In fact, it is much of a strawman. � � � It made the spread of Christianity almost impossible from a natural viewpoint. Crucifixion was an obscene form of torture and execution reserved for despised criminals. � Complete rubbish. The crucifiction was the means for the godman to sacrifice himself as a means to forgive humanity of sin. Jesus, according to your tradition, was not a common criminal (his crime was not "common"), and the entire symbolim written into the Christian mythos was one of "sacrifice" to bring about redemption. The context makes the above statement into nonsense. � Empiricist- no it is not nonsense- if Jesus had NOT been raised from the dead, and come back to teach again, the whole effort would have been for naught. It fulfilled prophesy also.   � Most people, hearing the Christian message that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God who died by crucifixion, thought it was ludicrous. One of the earliest first-century Christian preachers said, � We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [that is, non-Jews]� (1 Corinthians 1:23 ). It was not to the advantage of Christians to concoct a crucified Messiah. It made their life and mission much harder. � � The Jews rejected yuour accounts because 1) Paul committed willful distortions of the TANAKH, something gentiles would not pick up on. 2) The gospels were full of "willful" distortions to manipulate the TANAKH into validating the "replacement theology" spouted by the church. 3) The real audience were pagans, who were quite familiar with godmen,�gods fathering children, and mystery religions that�were full of symbols about resurrection � �Empiricist- where did you come up with that? Why don't you give some details? � � <H4>The Critical Issue of the 21st century</H4> The claim of many Muslims that Christ was never crucified, and that early Christians were mistaken or were myth-makers, goes against all the historical and intuitive evidence. � � � Funny. The author provided not a single ounce of evidence fromt he historical evidence he claims exists. � � Empiricist- Isn't the bible evidence? Where is your proof it is not accurate?   You use the Quran with no questions yet there is much evidence to contradict Muslim claims about its holiness and truth. � � The key issue between Christians and Muslims is not first and foremost the identity of Allah, but the fact and meaning of the death of Jesus Christ. This is also true for Judaism and Christianity: Who was this Jesus and why did he die? Both Judaism and Islam deny the essence of Christianity�that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah, the divine Son of God, who was crucified and raised from the dead to bring forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who believe in him. This makes Jesus incredibly relevant and controversial in the 21st century. The massive movement of Islam (over 1.3 billion people), and the comparatively small people of Israel have explosive significance in world affairs. The most critical issue between Islam and Judaism on the one hand, and Christianity on the other, is not whether Islam and Judaism are monotheistic. Nor is the issue whether Islam and Judaism try to honor Jesus. The issue is: Do Islam and Judaism�or any other faiths besides Christianity�cherish the righteous suffering and death of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, as the only ground of our acceptance with God? � � My God does not have to send Himself through a vagine, use the toiler, walk around, ans then preach for a few years, and then commit suicide so He can be a perfect sacrifice for Himself in order to forgive man of sin. �Empiricist- you miss the point of it all- to send a perfect man as an example for all- the "Lamb of God" the final sacrifice for the sins of man, according to prophesy. Your God does not seem like a God anyway. He is not the same as in the Bible. How do you know he is real and not man-made? How do you know it is not Satan in disguise? Satan is the king of deception. The TANAKH does not indicate any need to change the system in place for seeking resolution with God, hence there is no need for God to send Himself to die for man so that man can�seek atonement�with God. It is simply absurd, and makes no sense.�And God must�also suffer? This is such a convoluted theology, I am truly�amazed that many Christian proudly revel in this story. My God does not need to suffer, and He is capable of forgiving my sins without Him having to be born to die. Empiricist- maybe if you read the bible you would understand more about it.� The rest of the piece is simply an intellectual waste of time. The author offers no further direction that seeks to prove what he claims. � Empiricist- you offer nothing really to disprove anything, just speculation based on nothing. Back it up with something. � � � �

Bible say jesus set on the right hand of god

That mean jesus is not god

No one can set in his right hand

It prove they are two different person

Not one

Since jesus confirmed he is prophet

Luke 13:31

That mean he wasn't crucify

Because human/prophet if die
Will not return in life

That prove islam

God saved jesus as miracle

Quran didn't deny there was crucify
But quran deny that person was jesus


Allah say :

( -

004:157 Maulana     
:
And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain:

Let's see if jews agree with quran or bible :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M539PgDjbas


Person that jews crucify was not jesus
god resmbel him as jesus

They thought he is jesus but he. Was not
�...


� he didn't answer that mean he is not jesus

Mark 15
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
15�As soon as it was morning, the chief priests, leaders, and the scribes talked together. They tied Jesus and took him before Pilate to be judged.

2�Pilate asked him, `Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus answered, `Yes, I am.'

3�The chief priests brought many complaints against Jesus.

4�Then Pilate asked him, `Have you nothing to say? These people are bringing many complaints against you!'

5�But Jesus said nothing. Pilate was very much surprised about this.


Read this confirming jesus
Crucified as conspiracy not as salvation


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+15

According to jews law prophet should not be
Crucify it is humilation

They do it to prove he is not prophet

That is why they don't believe in jesus

Despite fact jews are waiting Massaih


Barbaas talking as if crucify is penalties not salvation


Luke 23:22 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him."


What did Pilate decide

◄ Luke 23:24 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
So Pilate decided to grant their demand.

So he crucify Man as penalties

� john 19

We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."


Son of God mean prophet

Adam called as son of god

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the Adam was the son of God

As I mentioned before jews are killer
Of prophets

Hi Caringheart,

Othere than Yshwe(known as Jesus) what deaths of prophets do you believe the Jews were responsible for?


Zakariya and John the baptist.

Matthew 23:37 KJV
King James Version
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee

iec