History is on our side on the Crucifixion and death of Jesus

More interaction with Paul Bilal Williams, the apostate Christian turned Muslim at his blog.

Note:  I removed the links to Paul B. Williams old web-site because he deleted the whole web-site a while back and now there seems to be some kind of virus attached to it.  

    • Paul Williams

      January 30, 2014 • 9:00 pm

      notice how Ken pushes Crossan’s views hard when he agrees with him and dismisses Crossan when he does not. A perfect example of cherry picking.

      Reply ↓
      • Ken Temple

        January 31, 2014 • 7:49 pm

        But aren’t you Cherrypicking also when you use his anti-supernatural bias against the inspiration and authority, truth of the Scriptures, and yet reject his intellectual historical confirmation(which everyone else that is intelligent agrees with) that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross?

        Reply ↓
        • Paul Williams

          January 31, 2014 • 8:44 pm

          Ken prove to me that Jesus died on the cross.

          Reply ↓
          • Ken Temple

            January 31, 2014 • 8:51 pm

            It has already been proven and established as historical fact. It is your blind fundamentalist faith in Surah 4:157 that came over 600 years later that holds you down so that you cannot see the truth. I don’t have to prove it to you, since it has already been proven for the world to see for anyone who has an open mind and is willing to look at the facts.

            Reply ↓
            • Paul Williams

              January 31, 2014 • 8:53 pm

              “I don’t have to prove it to you…”

              sounds like blind faith to me.

              Reply ↓
              • Ken Temple

                January 31, 2014 • 10:09 pm

                The fact that 99 % of all scholarship of history and many many unbelievers know that Jesus was crucified in history proves it is not “blind faith”. Unbelievers like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk – all confessed unbelievers in miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection, etc.

                Reply ↓
                • Ken Temple

                  January 31, 2014 • 10:10 pm

                  It is based on historical evidence, not blind faith. Yours is the blind faith that came over 600 years later.

                  Reply ↓
                  • Paul Williams

                    January 31, 2014 • 10:16 pm

                    What is your indisputable proof Ken? A photograph perhaps, a film? Archaeological evidence? Jesus’ DNA on a piece of the cross?

                    Reply ↓
  1. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:17 pm

    James D. G. Dunn, your favorite scholar, asserts that these “two facts (the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus) in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent” and “rank so high on the ‘almost impossible to doubt or deny’ scale of historical facts” that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Jesus Remembered, page 339.

    Reply ↓
    • Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:21 pm

      Why not address the question Ken? Simple appeals to authority do not work here:

      What is your indisputable proof? Do you have a photograph perhaps, or a film? Some archaeological evidence? Jesus’ DNA on a piece of the true cross?

      Reply ↓
  2. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:31 pm

    Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p. 136

    John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145. Crossan sides Tacitus and Josephus as ancient witnesses.

    Since your post is partly about what a great scholar Crossan is, then you should take his statement to heart and mind.

    Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jesus Legend, p. 127.

    Christopher M. Tuckett, another of your favorite scholars, states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, p. 136.

    Geza Vermes, another scholar you have lauded and used here at your blog (s) also views the crucifixion as a historical event. A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britian, p. 125-126

    Reply ↓
  3. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:33 pm

    “appeals to authority” – LOL – Rolling on the floor LOL – you, who constantly repeat the mind numbing mantra “all scholars say” are now denigrating your own common method?

    Not very intellectual of you!

    Reply ↓
    • Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:37 pm

      so you have added ad hominems to your appeals to authority. Not very clever Ken – try and answer the question…

      Reply ↓
  4. Paul Williams

    January 31, 2014 • 10:33 pm

    Ken you really are not paying attention are you? Try and focus on the question at hand and remember that simple appeals to authority do not work here.

    So once more:

    What is your indisputable proof? Do you have a photograph perhaps, or a film? Some archaeological evidence? Jesus’ DNA on a piece of the true cross?

    Reply ↓
  5. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:35 pm

    typo – should have been

    “Crossan cites” (Josephus and Tacitus)

    not

    “Crossan sides”

    Reply ↓
    • Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:39 pm

      any chance of an answer this side of the Second Coming?

      Reply ↓
  6. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:43 pm

    Photographs and films were non-existent at the time, (as was DNA forensic technology) so you are the anti-intellectual as to what constitutes the historical-legal method of ancient evidence.

    The ancient documents of the Jewish, Roman, and Greek writings are compatible with Archeological evidence – Talmud Sanhedrin 43a; Josephus; the Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Greek historian Lucian of Samosata – are legal testimonies for ancient historical evidence.

    Archeology –
    the 1968 archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem of the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century provided good confirmatory evidence of the gospel accounts of crucifixion . The crucified man was identified as Yohan Ben Ha’galgol and probably died about 70 AD, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. These studies also showed that the man had been crucified in a manner resembling the Gospel accounts. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

    Reply ↓
    • Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:45 pm

      Is that it??

      Excuse me Ken but I asked you for indisputable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. You have given me none whatsoever.

      Reply ↓
      • Ken Temple

        January 31, 2014 • 10:49 pm

        Dunn, Crossan, Tuckett, Ehrman, Meir, Borg, Funk, virtually every one else who are scholars of history agree that it is indisputable evidence.

        You have really shot yourself in the foot big time on this argument. You are not being very intellectual or scholarly on this issue, which you regularly and arrogantly claim you are so scholarly and intellectual.

        Reply ↓
  7. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:45 pm

    Plus we have the 4 gospels and the other of the 27 NT books – written long before the Qur’an and the Qur’an confirms them as the Injeel and inspired and “no one is able to change the word of God” – said several times in the Qur’an.

    Reply ↓
    • Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:52 pm

      So you now bring in the Quran as evidence of the crucifixion LOL!

      You never cease to amaze me Ken!

      You refer to all the books of the NT as evidence – which is frankly laughable. Was Luke an eyewitness? No. Was Paul? No. According to the scholars you cite above none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

      Reply ↓
      • Ken Temple

        January 31, 2014 • 10:53 pm

        Let the other comments go through, please.

        Reply ↓
  8. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:53 pm

    Sanhedrin Talmud 43a
    Josephus
    Tacitus
    Seutonius
    Lucian

    the 4 gospels

    Acts

    Paul’s 13 letters

    1, 2, 3 John

    Revelation

    Hebrews ( written before 70 AD)

    I and 2 Peter

    that’s excellent evidence for ancient legal -historical method

    You don’t have film or video or DNA for Muhammad either, but I don’t deny his existance.

    Reply ↓
    • Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:56 pm

      We have to go by written documents for evidences admissible as in a court of law for ancient evidence. To speak of film or video or DNA evidence is not intellectual or scholarly on your part.

      Reply ↓
  9. Ken Temple

    January 31, 2014 • 10:58 pm

    Luke interviewed eye witnesses.
    Mary and the women were eyewitnesses.
    Matthew was an eyewitness.
    Peter was an eyewitness and Mark wrote for him.
    John was an eyewitness.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:33 pm

      “appeals to authority” – LOL – Rolling on the floor LOL – you, who constantly repeat the mind numbing mantra “all scholars say” are now denigrating your own common method?

      Not very intellectual of you!

      Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 10:37 pm

        so you have added ad hominems to your appeals to authority. Not very clever Ken – try and answer the question…

        Reply ↓
    2. Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 10:33 pm

      Ken you really are not paying attention are you? Try and focus on the question at hand and remember that simple appeals to authority do not work here.

      So once more:

      What is your indisputable proof? Do you have a photograph perhaps, or a film? Some archaeological evidence? Jesus’ DNA on a piece of the true cross?

      Reply ↓
    3. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:35 pm

      typo – should have been

      “Crossan cites” (Josephus and Tacitus)

      not

      “Crossan sides”

      Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 10:39 pm

        any chance of an answer this side of the Second Coming?

        Reply ↓
    4. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:43 pm

      Photographs and films were non-existent at the time, (as was DNA forensic technology) so you are the anti-intellectual as to what constitutes the historical-legal method of ancient evidence.

      The ancient documents of the Jewish, Roman, and Greek writings are compatible with Archeological evidence – Talmud Sanhedrin 43a; Josephus; the Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Greek historian Lucian of Samosata – are legal testimonies for ancient historical evidence.

      Archeology –
      the 1968 archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem of the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century provided good confirmatory evidence of the gospel accounts of crucifixion . The crucified man was identified as Yohan Ben Ha’galgol and probably died about 70 AD, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. These studies also showed that the man had been crucified in a manner resembling the Gospel accounts. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

      Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 10:45 pm

        Is that it??

        Excuse me Ken but I asked you for indisputable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. You have given me none whatsoever.

        Reply ↓
        • Ken Temple

          January 31, 2014 • 10:49 pm

          Dunn, Crossan, Tuckett, Ehrman, Meir, Borg, Funk, virtually every one else who are scholars of history agree that it is indisputable evidence.

          You have really shot yourself in the foot big time on this argument. You are not being very intellectual or scholarly on this issue, which you regularly and arrogantly claim you are so scholarly and intellectual.

          Reply ↓
    5. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:45 pm

      Plus we have the 4 gospels and the other of the 27 NT books – written long before the Qur’an and the Qur’an confirms them as the Injeel and inspired and “no one is able to change the word of God” – said several times in the Qur’an.

      Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 10:52 pm

        So you now bring in the Quran as evidence of the crucifixion LOL!

        You never cease to amaze me Ken!

        You refer to all the books of the NT as evidence – which is frankly laughable. Was Luke an eyewitness? No. Was Paul? No. According to the scholars you cite above none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

        Reply ↓
    6. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:53 pm

      Sanhedrin Talmud 43a
      Josephus
      Tacitus
      Seutonius
      Lucian

      the 4 gospels

      Acts

      Paul’s 13 letters

      1, 2, 3 John

      Revelation

      Hebrews ( written before 70 AD)

      I and 2 Peter

      that’s excellent evidence for ancient legal -historical method

      You don’t have film or video or DNA for Muhammad either, but I don’t deny his existance.

      Reply ↓
      • Ken Temple

        January 31, 2014 • 10:56 pm

        We have to go by written documents for evidences admissible as in a court of law for ancient evidence. To speak of film or video or DNA evidence is not intellectual or scholarly on your part.

        Reply ↓
        • Paul Williams

          January 31, 2014 • 11:04 pm

          I was being tongue-in-cheek Ken

          Reply ↓
          • Ken Temple

            January 31, 2014 • 11:13 pm

            Does not honestly seem like it. (that you were being “tongue – in cheek”)

            We will let the readers decide if there is enough historical – legal evidence for ancient standards on my side of the argument.

            But thanks for letting the comments through. It is enough that ALL of your favorite scholars that you parade here ALL agree that Jesus Al Masih was crucified and died on a Roman cross around 30 AD, under Pontius Pilate.

            Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 11:05 pm

        a list of words is not evidence Ken.

        Reply ↓
        • Ken Temple

          January 31, 2014 • 11:07 pm

          “a list of words is not evidence Ken”

          Then you have no evidence for Muhammad or the Qur’an or the companions either.
          Boom. one can hear the massive crash of the tree of your thoughts falling right now.

          Reply ↓
    7. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 10:58 pm

      Luke interviewed eye witnesses.
      Mary and the women were eyewitnesses.
      Matthew was an eyewitness.
      Peter was an eyewitness and Mark wrote for him.
      John was an eyewitness.

      Reply ↓
      • Paul Williams

        January 31, 2014 • 11:03 pm

        What were the names of the “eyewitnesses” Luke claimed to interview?

        All the scholars you cite would deny that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

        Reply ↓
    8. Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 11:06 pm

      So no evidence. Time to eat humble pie Ken…

      Reply ↓
    9. Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 11:15 pm

      You should eat 5 large humble pies, since ALL of your favorite scholars agree with me on this point. Dunn, Tuckett, Ehrman, Crossan, etc. ALL of them agree with me!

      Reply ↓

      Paul Williams

      January 31, 2014 • 11:20 pm

      You really havent got it have you? It is an elementary fallacy when asked to produce empirical evidence to just list names of scholars.

      Reply ↓

      Ken Temple

      January 31, 2014 • 11:20 pm

      We will let the readers decide who has the strongest argument on this issue. Thanks for some good interaction.

      Reply ↓
Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, History, Islam, Paul Bilal Williams. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to History is on our side on the Crucifixion and death of Jesus

  1. θ says:

    Qur’an is one of Historical sources that support the narration of crucifixion over a Jesus’ resemblance.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    The Qur’an denies that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross. Surah 4:157 It goes against all historical fact on that issue.

  3. θ says:

    Moslems and those who study Qur’an know better that it doesn’t argue against historical fact. It just argues against the Bible narrations.
    Q.4, v.157 “but it (crucifixion on someone else) was made to resemble him (Jesus) for them (Jews and other eyewitnesses)”.

    Qur’an argues against the Bible narrations.
    1. Solar eclipse can’t occur on 14th day of Lunar calendar (Passover day).
    2. There’s no proof for the resurrection of many saints that walked and appeared in the city.
    3. Crucifixion outside the gate of Jerusalem turns to be a proof that Jesus is not a Prophet.
    Heb 13:12 “suffered out of the gate” , Luke 13:33 “It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem”, John.19:20 “place Jesus was crucified was nigh to city “.
    4. Jesus of Mark’s & Matthew’s fatally misquoted a phrase of the Bible (Sabachtani vs. Azabtani), Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34. Usually, only a person under possession of devil would consciously misquote the Bible.
    5. Despite bleeding and resisting the Romans using sword, Peter was not arrested or accused of being a transgressor. Peter just sits, listens and walks around the court without any blame.

    6. Later Gospel corrects the Synoptic narration:
    (i) Realising that it is ridiculous for Jews to anoint the dead body after three days, John deleted and changed a flawed story of anointment of a Jesus’ dead body from “after” burial (in Synoptic) to “before” burial, John 19:40.
    (ii) Realising that it is ridiculous to have a Solar eclipse on Passover, John deleted a flawed darkness story, John.19:30.
    (iii) Realising that it is ridiculous for Jesus to have wrongly misquoted the Bible, John just deleted a flawed story of uttering Sabachtani.
    (iv) Realising that it is ridiculous for one man Joseph Arimathaea to drag Jesus’ dead body alone, even to bury him improperly against Jewish tradition of burial, John just added another man Nicodemus to help him and to anoint the body.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    Q.4, v.157 “but it (crucifixion on someone else) was made to resemble him (Jesus) for them (Jews and other eyewitnesses)”.

    There is no way to prove that historically, that it was not Jesus. We have more than 7 writers of most of the 27 NT written documents that testify to the crucifixion. (James and Jude do not mention the crucifixion, but James calls Jesus, “the glorious Lord”.) The four gospels, Peter, Paul’s writings, Hebrews, secular writers – Tacitus, Suetonius, Jewish historian Josephus, etc. Archeology on Pontius Pilate, the empty tomb, etc. More than enough in court of law. It seems that may the root of why there is so much conspiracy theories in the Muslim world – “La!” (No!), “The Jews are behind it”; “Stephen Speilberg can make anything look real”; “the British did it”, “the Americans did it”,etc.

    It (Surah 4:157) is just a bare claim, a mere assertion, made 600 years later). Anyone can do that about anything in the past. for example: “It really was not Abraham Lincoln who got shot at Ford’s Theatre, it was someone who looked like him” or “That was not John F. Kennedy in the film, it was just someone who looked like him; he survived and Marilyn Monroe faked her suicide; and they ran off together to Argentina.”

    Qur’an argues against the Bible narrations.
    1. Solar eclipse can’t occur on 14th day of Lunar calendar (Passover day).

    Cannot God do miracles and stop the laws of nature, cause darkness, and put it all back by His power?

    2. There’s no proof for the resurrection of many saints that walked and appeared in the city.

    Except for the inspired text that says it. Matthew 27:52-53 – that is not harder to believe than Muhammad made a night flight on a winged creature to Jerusalem and then up to heaven and back to Arabia.

    3. Crucifixion outside the gate of Jerusalem turns to be a proof that Jesus is not a Prophet.
    Heb 13:12 “suffered out of the gate” , Luke 13:33 “It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem”, John.19:20 “place Jesus was crucified was nigh to city “.

    The fact that other Prophets did die outside of Jerusalem shows that Jesus does not mean that literally and absolutely.
    Jeremiah died in Egypt – Jeremiah 43
    Ezekiel died in Babylon.
    Daniel died in Persia.
    Moses died across the Jordan, on Mt. Nebo, in the land of Moab. (Deut. 32:48-52; 34:1-8)

    The trial was in Jerusalem and the crucifixion was right outside the city walls. It was close to Jerusalem, so Jesus meant that the main events of the trial and crucifixion would be in Jerusalem and around it.

    4. Jesus of Mark’s & Matthew’s fatally misquoted a phrase of the Bible (Sabachtani vs. Azabtani), Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34. Usually, only a person under possession of devil would consciously misquote the Bible.

    Jesus is quoting it in Aramaic.

    5. Despite bleeding and resisting the Romans using sword, Peter was not arrested or accused of being a transgressor. Peter just sits, listens and walks around the court without any blame.

    Where does the text say Peter was struck and bleeding? He struck the Roman servant, Malcus, and ran away; then came back, following from afar. not a problem.

    6. Later Gospel corrects the Synoptic narration:
    That is just a bald assertion. You don’t know that it “corrects” anything. Instead 4 human writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to give different details. (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Tim. 3:16) Just because a detail is not mentioned in one does not mean it did not happen. If they were exactly alike, what would be the point? That would indicate collusion (planning ahead of time what to say, to say the same thing). When detectives and police ask different witnesses, if they say the exact same thing, that means that planned and colluded with each other on what to say.

    (i) Realising that it is ridiculous for Jews to anoint the dead body after three days, John deleted and changed a flawed story of anointment of a Jesus’ dead body from “after” burial (in Synoptic) to “before” burial, John 19:40.

    One was before the burial, another after the Sabbath to “freshen” things up. Both are true.

    (ii) Realising that it is ridiculous to have a Solar eclipse on Passover, John deleted a flawed darkness story, John.19:30.

    John did not delete it; he just does not mention it. God can do miracles.

    (iii) Realising that it is ridiculous for Jesus to have wrongly misquoted the Bible, John just deleted a flawed story of uttering Sabachtani.

    No; there is not deletion. John just does not include the details of Jesus’ quote of Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic. But having it in Matthew and Mark shows it is true. It is not necessary for it to be in all four gospels.

    (iv) Realising that it is ridiculous for one man Joseph Arimathaea to drag Jesus’ dead body alone, even to bury him improperly against Jewish tradition of burial, John just added another man Nicodemus to help him and to anoint the body.

    There is nothing in the text about dragging the body all by himself. He could have servants/workers doing the work for him, and Nicodmous is there, he is just not mentioned in the other gospels. not a problem.

  5. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: It (Surah 4:157) is just a bare claim, a mere assertion, made 600 years later). Anyone can do that about anything in the past. for example: ”

    Qur’an does not invent it. Decotists have a source directly from Peter that Jews wrongly crucified a likeness of Jesus .
    http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html
    When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them.
    And I said “What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it *another one* whose feet and hands they are striking?”
    The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus.
    But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his *fleshly part*, which is the
    *substitute* being put to shame, the one who came into being in his *likeness*.
    But look at *him* and me.”
    But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.” But he said to me, “I have told you, ‘Leave the blind alone!’. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the *son of their glory* instead of my servant, they have put to shame.”

    And I saw someone about to approach us *resembling him*, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible Angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed.

    And he said to me, “Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the *first-born*, and the *home of demons*, and the *stony vessel* in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law.
    But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind.
    So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the *substitute. *

    But what they released was my incorporeal body.
    But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light.
    He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma, which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit.”

    “These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age.
    For there will be no honor in any man who is not immortal, but only (in) those who were chosen from an immortal substance, which has shown that it is able to contain him who gives his abundance. Therefore I said, ‘Every one who has, it will be given to him, and he will have plenty.’ But he who does not have, that is, the man of this place, who is completely dead, who is removed from the planting of the creation of what is begotten, whom, if one of the immortal essence appears, they think that they possess him – it will be taken from him and be added to the one who is. You, therefore, be courageous and do not fear at all. For I shall be with you in order that none of your enemies may prevail unto you. Peace be to you, Be strong!”When he (Jesus) had said these things, he (Peter) came to himself.

  6. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: 1. Solar eclipse can’t occur on 14th day of Lunar calendar (Passover day).Cannot God do miracles and stop the laws of nature, cause darkness, and put it all back by His power?”

    There’s such an Astronomical lunacy that would have affected entire world if the Moon suddenly runs out of course:
    (i) People in the eastern hemisphere would suddenly experience the “sudden Midday” for several hours at the middle of Night. Do you understand this?
    (ii) The next fanciful question is, after the Solar eclipse ended some certain hours, did the Moon return back to its “previous orbit” before the eclipse happened, or is it just running a new track of orbit as usual? Think about that.

    The bottom line I want to underline is,
    1. It is not true that Qur’an is against Historical fact. Qur’an just agrees with Historical fact that the crucifixion really occurred but “on a likeness of Jesus”, that’s all. Q.4, v.157 “but it (crucifixion on someone else) was made to resemble him (Jesus) for them (Jews and other eyewitnesses)”.

    2. It is not grue that Qur’an invents the resembling story. Peter wrote it as well.
    http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html
    Please read the use of words that absolutely refer to the resemblance of Jesus therein:
    *another one*, *fleshly part*, *substitute* , *likeness*, look at *him* and me”, *son of their glory* , *resembling him*, the *first-born*, *home of demons*, *stony vessel*, body is the *substitute. *.
    Also the fulfilled prophesy: “These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age.” It is prophesied long time 600 years earlier.

  7. θ says:

    “Madmanna says : Heb 13:12 “suffered out of the gate” , Luke 13:33 “It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem”, John.19:20 “place Jesus was crucified was nigh to city “. The fact that other Prophets did die outside of Jerusalem shows that Jesus does not mean that literally and absolutely. Jeremiah died in Egypt – Jeremiah 43 Ezekiel died in Babylon. Daniel died in Persia. Moses died across the Jordan, on Mt. Nebo, in the land of Moab. (Deut. 32:48-52; 34:1-8) ”

    What Jesus says concerning “can’t be a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem” is certainly the prophesy of his death. Jesus didn’t refer to the past. None of past Prophets (Jeremiah, Moses, Ezekiel) suffers in Jerusalem.
    Otherise, if what Jesus meant of “perish” is just a figurative suffering, instead of the real death, yet the suffering of those past Prophets (who died outside of Jerusalem) didn’t take place at Jerusalem either, hence he must have made a big historical mistake and Biblical anachronism.

  8. Ken Temple says:

    Thanks for the quote and link to the Apocalypse of Peter.

    Do you know why the Docetists and Gnostics believed that Jesus was not really crucified?

    Basiledes also taught that. Irenaeus mentions him around 180-200 AD in his work, Against Heresies.

    So, here again, as with the Apocryphal gospels of the Infancy and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus speaking from cradle, and making a bird and it flying away), and in getting other information from legends such as the Cave of Seven Sleepers, and Jewish Midrash stories, the Qur’an borrowed its ideas from another group of heretics, a group of Docetists and Gnostics who believed that matter was evil in itself, sex and meat was evil, that Jesus did not really have a body at all (contrary to Islam), and so, was not born of the virgin Mary (also contrary to Islam); and the Creator-Sovereign God of the Old Testament was a Demi-urge and not the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. ok . . . this just proves how un-inspired the Qur’an is.

    I am not “Madmanna”. smile 🙂

    On the solar eclipse affecting the entire world – yes, but God can just command with with a thought / word and control every thing else all over the world all at one time. He is the All Mighty and He can do it.

  9. θ says:

    (i) If Jesus spoke Aramaic, why do Gospels use Hebrew word “Eli” or “Eloi” for God, instead of Aramaic “Elahi”?
    There’s no word “Eli” or “Eloi” for God in Aramaic. For God, Aramaic uses “Elahi” in writing and speaking with a clear “a” vowel

    (ii) In Matthew’s Gospel Jews assumed that Jesus called out to Elijah for help, that is the word “Elia” or “Eli”.
    Why do Aramaic-speaking Jews who heard “Eli” that day get truly confused when understanding his words on the cross. See Matt 27:47, “This man calleth for Elijah?”
    They are supposed to say “This man calleth for his God”.

    (iii) In contrast, Mark’s use of word “Eloi” with a clear “o” vowel is just non-existent in Aramaic.

  10. θ says:

    The phrase “Eli/Eloi Lama Sabachtani” is a linguistic anachronism because it inconsistently contains one incoherent mixture of 2 languages: Hebrew (Eli/Eloi) and Aramaic (Sabachtani).

    In Aramaic, Jesus should have said “Elahi Lama Sabachtani”
    In Hebrew, Jesus should have said: “Eloi Lama Azabtani”.

    (i) If Jesus spoke Aramaic, why do the writers of Gospel use a Hebrew word “Eli” or “Eloi” for God, instead of Aramaic “Elahi”?
    There’s no word “Eli” or “Eloi” for God in Aramaic. For God, Aramaic uses “Elahi” in writing and speaking with a clear “a” vowel

    (ii) In Matthew’s Gospel Jews assumed that Jesus called out to Elijah for help, that is the word “Elia” or “Eli”.
    Why do Aramaic-speaking Jews who heard “Eli” that day get truly confused when understanding his words on the cross. See Matt 27:47, “This man calleth for Elijah?”
    They are supposed to say “This man calleth for his God”.

    (iii) In contrast, Mark’s use of word “Eloi” with a clear “o” vowel is just non-existent in Aramaic.

    • Ken Temple says:

      There is a lot of debate among scholars as to how the vowel pointing was in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew, and how that transliterates into Greek.

      Also, Jews of Roman Occupied Israel / Palestine would easily say the word of God in Hebrew and mix it with the Aramaic rest of the sentence. In the same an English speaker may say, “Yahweh is the Lord’, or “Jehovah is the Lord”, etc.

      Like English speakers cannot say “Khomeini” kh = خ , so they say Komeini or Homeini, etc.
      and they cannot say Qatr / Qatar right – قطر either, they say “Qatar” or “Gutter” . Ted Koppel used to say “Katami” for Khatami خاتمی

      Also hearing a dying man struggle to articulate words would explain why they thought Jesus was calling upon Elijah.

  11. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: So, here again, as with the Apocryphal gospels of the Infancy and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus speaking from cradle, and making a bird and it flying away), and in getting other information from legends such as the Cave of Seven Sleepers, and Jewish Midrash stories, the Qur’an borrowed its ideas from another group of heretics, a group of Docetists and Gnostics who believed that matter was evil in itself, sex and meat was evil, that Jesus did not really have a body at all (contrary to Islam), and so, was not born of the virgin Mary (also contrary to Islam); and the Creator-Sovereign God of the Old Testament was a Demi-urge and not the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. ok . . . this just proves how un-inspired the Qur’an is.”

    Don’t be so holier than others. Christianity itself is based on what Jews called “uninspired legends” of “accursed Jew” the son of impure woman.
    Catholics have 7 books of Apocrypha that Protestants complained after 1500 years as “uninspired fairy-tales”.
    Protestants themselves have uninspired non-KJV versions which KJV-only Protestant claimed as the version of apostates.

  12. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Qur’an borrowed its ideas from another group of heretics, a group of Docetists and Gnostics”

    Jude borrowed his ideas from the “uninspired books”: Assumption of Moses (v.9) and the Book of Enoch (v.14-15), so this proves that Apocrypha can contain the canonical truth in them.
    In the Old Testament, even God even speaks the truth through a donkey (Num. 22:28), hence the truth is truth, no matter where it is found.

    Paul quoted words of Jesus, which were not contained in the four gospels (Acts 20:35), so it shows that some Apocryphal sources can be accepted as canon.
    Paul quotes Cleanthes and Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), affirms a statement of Epimenides (Titus 1:12-13), even shockingly refers to “Jannes and Jambres” who were not mentioned anywhere else in the Tanach (2 Tim. 3:8).

  13. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Also hearing a dying man struggle to articulate words would explain why they thought Jesus was calling upon Elijah.”

    Okay it makes sense in verbal speech. But how about the writing?
    The phrase “Eli/Eloi Lama Sabachtani” is a linguistic anachronism in Gospel’s writings because it inconsistently contains one incoherent mixture of 2 languages: Hebrew (Eli/Eloi) and Aramaic (Sabachtani).

Comments are closed.