Prophets after Jesus

[Servant19]

There are a great many hadiths which are very unreliable in their authenticity.

Stick to the Quran is better dear friend…

.

 

[jakasaki]

There are a great many hadiths which are very unreliable in their authenticity.

Stick to the Quran is better dear friend…

.

If they are “unreliable” then they would not be considered “sahih”

Besides,

Muslims believe in the
Quran first
Hadith second
Sunna of the prophet third

Only Quranists ignore the hadiths

 

[Servant19]

Because Jesus insists on it.
Do you deny that God can do this if He so desires?

Maybe…its debatable…

But what you also have is that Pope Benedict DOES NOT insist on it…where does Catholicism stand?

You don’t believe that angels have ever manifested themselves physically?

Not sure, do you have any proofs of this…

God works through His physical creation.

Again, I am not certain of this, its a learning area for me…can you elaborate how you came to this conclusion please?

You’re starting to sound very gnostic.

Really?

How so?

Yes. Why, it’s almost like God can do miracles.

So you are aware of a miracle whereby a dead person has become visible, as a soul, to tens or hundreds of people?



Where?

.

 

[Servant19]

If they are “unreliable” then they would not be considered “sahih”

Besides,

Muslims believe in the
Quran first
Hadith second
Sunna of the prophet third

Only Quranists ignore the hadiths

I personally and humbly would suggest everyone stick to being a Quranist…Hadiths are similar to “recollections”…Recollections are, by definition unreliable in their detail…

Finally, the term “bell” can also in translation be a horn, a trumpet sound, a ringer, what was the original words in Arabic?

.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Maybe…its debatable…

But what you also have is that Pope Benedict DOES NOT insist on it…where does Catholicism stand?

You’re claiming that Pope Benedict denys the physical resurrection of Christ?


I don’t THINK so.

So you are aware of a miracle whereby a dead person has become visible, as a soul, to tens or hundreds of people?

Where?

.

Not a “dead person” but someone who HAD BEEN dead:
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

 

[Servant19]

You’re claiming that Pope Benedict denys the physical resurrection of Christ?


I don’t THINK so.

Nope, I’m saying that Pope Benedict said that Jesus did not go to a physical place at His Ascension. So where did His physical body go?

Into a spiritual heaven?

Not a “dead person” but someone who HAD BEEN dead:
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Paul wasn’t even a witness to any of that, dear friend.

When Jesus was crucified, hundreds of saints were also raised from the dead and witnessed by crowds of people.

The Romans were the most articulate and systematic at making historical documents and records, but not one historical record of this occurrence??? Do you never ask yourself this question?



.

 

[eddie_too]

some people prefer the testimony of eyewitnesses to the testimony of people who were not born until four hundred or 1800 years after the event.

the eyewitnesses are clear about what they experienced.

those who testify four hundred or 1800 years later know only what they have heard about the events; and, they have self-interests that necessarily raise questions about their objectivity.

finally, the fact that the latecomers contradict the eyewitness accounts lends credence to questioning what is the real source of the latecomers’ testimonies?

why would God contradict Himself? on the other hand, satan most certainly would entice men to contradict God.

where does reason lead us? to reject the eyewitnesses testimonies based on the testimonies of people who were not born until centuries after the event?

to accept the testimonies of people who obviously have ulterior reasons for contradicting the eye witness accounts, is that reasonable?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dialogues;11793741]Jesus talks about killing his enemies in Luke19:27. I mentioned it before. So what happens to your unconditional love for enemies which you presume to tell me Jesus proclaimed? So your criticism of Muhammad.s.a. for what other Biblical prophets did is hypocritical.

You draw false conclusions the reaches beyond what the parable of the pounds which Jesus is teaching about a present event that is taking place in his time; Jesus is not speaking of Himself killing enemies, you flat out have a distorted view of this parable or simply you lie.

**The parable is addressing the Son of King Herod, who went to Rome after Herod’s death to get official confirmation of his royal title, the Jews also went to protest against **(Herods’ son) **Archelaus succession because he was a cruel and unjust man, while some of **Archelaus retainers protected his interests in Jerusalem. Now the parable comes to light in Jesus present time and for all time to his disciples are not to worry about their enemies of the kingdom, but rather continue in the inheritance God is left with them.

Islam or any Muslim was never there in Jesus presence to draw any conclusion false or true. That is why there is so many contradictions in Islam and why so many Muslims interpret the Quran in so many different interpretations. How is your interpetation of the Quran over other Muslim’s different interpretations?

The Catholic Church never does this, there can only be One Truth, One God. But your Johny come lately interpretation of past history which your Islamic faith never witnessed it because it did not exist. Islam makes its faith claim all alone with no support from any other historical person or event, Islam’s faith reaches back only from your self claim, with no witnesses, forcing Hebrew Jews to become fictious Islamic Muslims which anyone with reason, can see this as far reaching into fiction.

Let us summarize our discussion, should you feel to continue on changing the subject matter, which appears to be your motive because you have not and cannot prove your false statements of Elijah never appearing, and comparing the Love of enemy which Jesus teaches and Muhammad or the Quran never teaches.

1. You mention countless examples of Love, mercy, forgiveness by Muhammad practicing his Islamic faith, you do well. **But your examples of Muhammad’s Love recorded in the Quran never ever fulfill the law and the prophets. Jesus Love of enemy fulfills the Law and the Prophets which supersedes any secular powers of Muhammad **and him exercising his authority to take life or spare life while his enemies are on their knees.
2. You cannot go around blatently making the false claim that Elijah never came, when Jesus states “Elijah has already come” Luke 17:11, then I gave you biblical examples of Elijah coming both in the Spirit and at the Transfiguration. Your rebuttal only qualifies that Elijah did come, because you reach for false conclusions and try to make the transfiguration a miracle by God, a sort of false dream vision, that Jesus, Elijah, Moses, Peter, John and Andrew all had at the same time? What you forget to reveal, after Jesus reveals to his disciples not to tell anyone of this True Event Heavenly visioned in their presence space and time, until “after the Son of man is raised from the dead”.

When Jesus tells them to reveal the Transfiguration to all after he rises from the dead, only qualifies that Jesus transfiguration was an actual historical event with Elijah and Moses present.

3. Islam holds to a heretical Arian christian Jesus, which the church defeated long before Muhammad was ever born. These Arian priests’ went into the Arab territories and taught their heretical Jesus to you and to Muhammad’s wifes brother. Yes, read your history, Muhammad’s wifes’ brother was an Arian heretical Christian priest, who taught Muhammad and his wife a false heretical Jesus, which infected Islam.

You never contest the True Christian faith of Catholicism, because the Quran and Muhammad never knew a True Catholic Bishop to teach them. Your views contradict the True Christian faith, with a heretical Jesus that never existed but was invented by heretics holding to a man made Arian view or Gnostic view of Jesus, which the Catholic Church defeated centuries before Islam was ever introduced.

1. So with this short history lesson, I pray we can dialogue these boards with such a True understanding. Learn from those Christians who were present with Jesus, who can give an account of the Jesus present time and His True teachings.
2. Jesus kingdom is not of this world, but is in the world. Muhammad fights to progress a kingdom that is of the world, which you claim has the authority to spare one’s life and take one’s life. Jesus is an eternal king forever, He will return one day. You confuse secular limited political human power of Muhammad and Islam which is never compared to the eternal Kingly power of Jesus Christ. Understand this difference, would help you not to keep making such grand false assumptions of the True Christian faith and misinterpreting the True Jesus Christ who lives resurrected from the dead.
   cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In conclusion; My dear friend Dialogue;
I can understand why you have a Jesus that is limited and only human, because you reject Muhammad’s brother in laws heretical Arian Christian faith, when you never new the real and True Jesus in the first century. Before you reply, I already know, yes Muhammad’s brother in law converted to Islam. He could do this, because his Jesus was a figmant of his imagination, which you are holding to, and we Catholics do not. That is why there is no comparison of the True Jesus and Islam’s heretical Arian view of Jesus.

P.s please study your Islam christianity, and study Christianity further back than the time before Muhammad was infected with a heretical Arian Christian faith, which is never Catholic. And you will find your heretical view of Jesus was rejected centuries before Muhammad was ever born. And learn about Muhammad’s wife’s brother when he was a Christian heretical priest.

Peace be with you

 

[Dialogues]

“Sudden” means a pumping heart?

As I tried to explain, it indicates that there is pressure in the blood vessels, which only comes from a living heart. The words ‘at once’ also indicate the same. This does not require a translator to use the word ‘gush’, although it makes it more evident.

Ahhh, so no one ever died unless a physician was there? Here’s a hint: they saw more death than most physicians will ever see. They were responsible for more killing than Al Queda. They knew what dead looks like.

This would not stand as evidence in court that they were indeed correct to presume him dead. His vital signs were not checked.

From wikipedia:

Medical authorities W. D. Edwards, W. J. Gabel and F. E. Hosmer offered the following analysis in regard to the New Testament Greek and the medical data:
​

Were they Christians, and hell-bent on supporting their preconceived notions?

… Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier’s spear into his side.

I have already showed in a post before from the Greek word used that this was not a major life-threatening wound as is wrongly being suggested.

Read what another Christian author writes about Jesus on the cross:

“Death usually proceeded slowly, over a period of several days, and the typical cause was suffocation. Jesus died unusually quickly, perhaps because of his previous flogging and perhaps because of the use of nails rather than ropes. The Gospels also suggest that he died voluntarily, at his chosen time. After all, he had enough strength at the end to cry out with a loud voice and enough will to entrust himself to God. Jews interpreted death by crucifixion as equivalent to “hanging on a tree”, and thus concluded that anyone so punished was accursed by God (Deut 21:22-23). This explains why the Christian message of a crucified Messiah later scandalised so many Jews. (1 Cor 1:23). The Gospels recount the roughly three hours Jesus hung alive on the cross …” [Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey By Craig L. Blomberg p. 401, 402]

Pilate is said to have been surprised at the reported death of Jesus after being on the cross for ‘roughly three hours’ because he knew crucifixion took days, not hours. The author suggests a voluntary death because of the unusually quick supposed death. In actual fact, it was the drugged drink which rendered him unconscious. And I would suggest you read and post in the thread entitled ‘An Accursed Death?’ on this matter, for it is an insult to Jesus to say he was accursed of God.

No, not from death; He knew that that would be overcome. The torturing was what He was despairing over.

He cried out in despair on the cross: 'My God My God why have you forsaken Me?’ This prove that he had indeed been praying for escape from death on the cross, of which he had some hopes.

But that’s been your argument all along.

Why not prove that by quoting from my previous posts where I have stated that?

Peace.​

 

[eddie_too]

dialogues posting proves nothing despite claims to the contrary.

dialogues postings are filled with misinformation that has nothing to do with the RC faith.

there were always people who denied Jesus and His Resurrection. mohammed and dialogues are just a few more.

the most notable thing about their denials is that they are based on nothing except their own misinterpretations that arise from lack of information about what they write.

from the first Pentecost Sunday forward, the Lord’s followers have proclaimed His divinity and His bodily Resurrection. from that day to this, that teaching has been a constant in the Roman Catholic Church.

how foolish is it for someone to believe that the RCC is wrong based on the self-serving teachings of someone who has little to no knowledge of christianity, much less the RCC?

why believe the words of someone who speaks of events that occurred four hundred years before his birth and contradicts the testimony of those present at the events?

there is no GOOD reason to believe a johnny-come-lately when there are the testimonies of reliable eyewitnesses available.

in every generation, throughout history, we have evidence of people wanting to trade on the name of Jesus erroneously. mohammed was nothing new. mohammed was just another who saw in Jesus a means of advancing mohammed’s, not Jesus’, human agenda.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As I tried to explain, it indicates that there is pressure in the blood vessels, which only comes from a living heart.

You can repeat something untrue over and over again to make it believed; that still doesn’t make it true.

This would not stand as evidence in court that they were indeed correct to presume him dead. His vital signs were not checked.

You assume they weren’t checked.

Were they Christians, and hell-bent on supporting their preconceived notions?

Sorry, Taqiyya isn’t a Christian practice.

I have already showed in a post before from the Greek word used that this was not a major life-threatening wound as is wrongly being suggested.

Yes, so you claimed. However, you also contradicted yourself by stating that this very same wound produced a “gushing” of blood indicating arterial incursion of a living victim.

Your statements contradict each other and therefore at least one is false.

Read what another Christian author writes about Jesus on the cross:

"Death usually proceeded slowly, over a period of several days, and the typical cause was suffocation. Jesus died unusually quickly, perhaps because of his previous flogging and perhaps because of the use of nails rather than ropes. The Gospels also suggest that he died voluntarily, at his chosen time. After all, he had enough strength at the end to cry out with a loud voice and enough will to entrust himself to God. Jews interpreted death by crucifixion as equivalent to “hanging on a tree”, and thus concluded that anyone so punished was accursed by God (Deut 21:22-23). This explains why the Christian message of a crucified Messiah later scandalised so many Jews. (1 Cor 1:23). The Gospels recount the roughly three hours Jesus hung alive on the cross …" [Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey By Craig L. Blomberg p. 401, 402]

Yep. So?
It does explain the reason why it DID go “quickly.”

In actual fact, it was the drugged drink which rendered him unconscious.

I guess you don’t know the definition of “fact.”

He cried out in despair on the cross: 'My God My God why have you forsaken Me?’ This prove that he had indeed been praying for escape from death on the cross, of which he had some hopes.

Nope. It “proves” that He was well aquainted with the Psalms and intended to mak a connection between His death and Psalm 22.

Why not prove that by quoting from my previous posts where I have stated that?

I didn’t think I’d HAVE to:

The gushing out of blood and water is a clear sign of a pumping heart.

The word sudden also indicates a pumping heart. Other translations state ‘immediately’, ‘forthwith’, ‘at once’, ‘right away’, all suggesting a pumping heart.

If you’re not even going to be honest about what you’ve just posted, It seems to me that you’re not even being honest with yourself. I think this conversation is over.

 

[SteveVH]

How do we know that God intended Jesus to be his final message to humanity before his second coming, but then saw that the devil was purposefully disrupting and corrupting the original teaching, so sent Muhammad to clarify and affirm it?

Do you think that an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t see this coming and therefore had to change his plans? The fact of the matter is that Jesus is “God with us”. Where before, God spoke through his prophets, now he became flesh and dwelt among us. He revealed himself to us. What more could another prophet do? There is simply no need to further reveal someone who has already revealed himself. We know who God is through Jesus Christ, who is God himself.

Peace.

Steve

 

[eddie_too]

as for this phrase “blood gushing forth”, Jesus died on the Cross. the Romans thought He was already dead before being taken down from the Cross. to ensure that He was dead, they pierced His side with a lance and blood and water issued, gushed, poured, use whatever verb you like, but it is safe to conclude that if Jesus heart was still beating when His side was pierced, it was not beating after it was pierced and the blood gushed forth.

any reports of this wound being bound by those who loved Him?

are we really expected to believe the muslim account and conclude that those who loved His simply left Him to bleed to death? seriously, that is mohammed’s teaching?

what kind of people leave the wounds of their loved ones unattended while the loved onesa are still alive? i am guessing only a muslim would do or believe in this.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

dialogues posting proves nothing despite claims to the contrary.

dialogues postings are filled with misinformation that has nothing to do with the RC faith.

there were always people who denied Jesus and His Resurrection. mohammed and dialogues are just a few more.

the most notable thing about their denials is that they are based on nothing except their own misinterpretations that arise from lack of information about what they write.

from the first Pentecost Sunday forward, the Lord’s followers have proclaimed His divinity and His bodily Resurrection. from that day to this, that teaching has been a constant in the Roman Catholic Church.

Yep. It amazes me that, for a religion that claims to believe the Gospels and the NT, they blatently contradict it with their made-up beliefs.

If Jesus was indeed sent by God as they claim to believe, then His statements such as:
Lu 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,

… should suffice.

And these statements can be multiplied nearly inexhaustively:
Joh 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Joh 21:14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Ac 3:15 and killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Ac 4:2 annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Ac 4:10 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.

Ac 10:41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead

Ac 13:30 But God raised him from the dead;

Ac 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

Ac 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Ro 1:4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Ro 4:24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,

Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Ro 6:9 For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Ro 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Ro 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.

Ro 8:34 who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us?

Ro 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
1Co 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Etc., etc., etc.

 

[eddie_too]

indeed, the Good News is that sin and death have been defeated through the Cross of Christ.

 

[Dialogues]

You draw false conclusions the reaches beyond what the parable of the pounds which Jesus is teaching about a present event that is taking place in his time; Jesus is not speaking of Himself killing enemies, you flat out have a distorted view of this parable or simply you lie.

Was it not you who stated that the killing of enemies will be practiced when Jesus comes back with the authority which he never had whilst on earth 2 millenia ago?

forcing Hebrew Jews to become fictious Islamic Muslims which anyone with reason, can see this as far reaching into fiction.

Did those Hebrew Jews never submit to God’s will?

1. You mention countless examples of Love, mercy, forgiveness by Muhammad practicing his Islamic faith, you do well.

The teaching of loving one’s enemies is perfected by Islam, defining how it is to be practiced and how not to let this exceed love for God and righteousness, and how not to infringe the legitimate rights of others in so doing. It trims the teaching into proper shape, otherwise it is like unkept hair and wildly long nails.

1. You cannot go around blatently making the false claim that Elijah never came, when Jesus states “Elijah has already come” Luke 17:11, then I gave you biblical examples of Elijah coming both in the Spirit and at the Transfiguration.

I accepted that the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist, but you wish to deny that Jesus clearly states the transfiguration to be a vision. You reject the words of Jesus and follow the whims and fancies of others (your church?), whom you appear to have more love for. That’s your choice. In my case, even if Jesus hadn’t categorically stated it was a vision, I would still have considered it to be a vision (kashf), because Muslims have experience of such matters.

3. Islam holds to a heretical Arian christian Jesus, which the church defeated long before Muhammad was ever born. These Arian priests’ went into the Arab territories and taught their heretical Jesus to you and to Muhammad’s wifes brother. Yes, read your history, Muhammad’s wifes’ brother was an Arian heretical Christian priest, who taught Muhammad and his wife a false heretical Jesus, which infected Islam.

You never contest the True Christian faith of Catholicism, because the Quran and Muhammad never knew a True Catholic Bishop to teach them.

The Qur’an also has verses which refer to the doctrine of trinity and the taking of Jesus to be a God. So, your hypothesis of Arian or Gnostic involvement cannot be true.

1. So with this short history lesson, I pray we can dialogue these boards with such a True understanding.

God willing.

Learn from those Christians who were present with Jesus, who can give an account of the Jesus present time and His True teachings.

Those Christians say Jesus said the transfiguration was a vision, but you reject this.

1. Jesus kingdom is not of this world, but is in the world. Muhammad fights to progress a kingdom that is of the world, which you claim has the authority to spare one’s life and take one’s life.

Islam teaches how to establish a living relationship of love with God, but does not ignore the fact that we live in this world, and need to have guidance on issues pertaining to our worldly life. The Polytheists of Arabia, the Jews of Arabia, the Christians of Byzantium, the Persians, were all the first to initiate conflict with Muslims with the desire to exterminate Muslims, and Muslims responded to their declaration of war.

Jesus is an eternal king forever, He will return one day.

Just like Elijah returned in John the Baptist, Jesus himself will never return, but someone else was to come as Messiah in his stead.

In conclusion; My dear friend Dialogue;

Yes my dear friend Gabriel?

I can understand why you have a Jesus that is limited and only human

Jesus ate and digested food, which is a function of the animal kingdom, of which God is not a member. Think about it. If someone said that an insect was a human, people would consider that to be ridiculous, yet both insects and humans are in the animal kingdom.

And God is all-powerful, but Jesus was helpless during his three year ministry in Judea. How then could he possibly be God?

Peace be upon you.

 

[eddie_too]

what is the reasoning behind the muslim teaching that a Divine Person CANNOT have two natures?

i know they assert it. i just do not know why they make such an assertion.

does anyone know why muslims teach that God cannot have two natures?

 

[Dialogues]

You can repeat something untrue over and over again to make it believed; that still doesn’t make it true.

Because despite my clarifications, you still continue to allege that I suggested the blood came out in ‘spurts’, which was never my point. You attack a straw man.

You assume they weren’t checked.

Nothing in the Bible tells us this was done, nor is it known to be a roman practice.

Sorry, Taqiyya isn’t a Christian practice.

It sure isn’t an Islamic practice. It contradicts the clear teaching of numerous verses of the Qur’an on telling the truth and being honest and straightforward, and being steadfast and firm in faith. It is however what Peter did when he denied and cursed Christ three times. It may be from this father of taqiyya, who crumbled to dust out of cowardly fear, rather than stand firm like a rock, that the shi’a, who propound such a notion, took it. And I never said I was a shi’a.

So your reference to taqiyya was not only uncalled for, it was actually a red herring, because I never alleged that those Christians were denying their actual beliefs out of dishonesty. Rather my point was that they are influenced to say what they say because of their preconceived notions stemming from their beliefs.

Yes, so you claimed. However, you also contradicted yourself by stating that this very same wound produced a “gushing” of blood indicating arterial incursion of a living victim.

You allege a contradiction when there isn’t one. A spear doesn’t have to go all the way to the heart from the abdomen in order for blood to rush out. A not too deep wound can also cause a sudden or immediate flow of blood.

Yep. So? It does explain the reason why it DID go “quickly.”

The only way Origen could explain the blood flow was to describe it as a miracle, and this Christian author (Blomberg) likewise resorted to explain the unusually quick supposed death by suggesting it was voluntary. In other words, you shut your eyes to reasoning and become irrational and still insist that your notions should be accepted blindly.

I guess you don’t know the definition of “fact.”

Anyone reading the Biblical text with a logical mind can see the bowing of the head occurred immediately following the finishing of the drink. Connecting the two occurrences is not rocket science, it is common sense:

John 19:30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Nope. It “proves” that He was well aquainted with the Psalms and intended to mak a connection between His death and Psalm 22.

So you believe the psalm was hollow and meaningless, and the person reciting the words did not feel forsaken at all. What a bogus commentary on it!

I didn’t think I’d HAVE to:

Yes you did, because you were making a straw-man argument, as I have explained already.

If you’re not even going to be honest about what you’ve just posted, It seems to me that you’re not even being honest with yourself. I think this conversation is over.

You don’t need to make up excuses to discontinue the conversation. You can simply ignore my posts.

Peace.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Because despite my clarifications, you still continue to allege that I suggested the blood came out in ‘spurts’, which was never my point. You attack a straw man.

Blood “gushing” due to a “beating heart,” both points that you are depending on heavily for your assumptions, would make blood come out in “spurts.” Basic anatomy + your own statements = just what I said, and just what you deny.

Nothing in the Bible tells us this was done, nor is it known to be a roman practice.

Citation, please? What historian says this is not a Roman practice?

It sure isn’t an Islamic practice. It contradicts the clear teaching of numerous verses of the Qur’an on telling the truth and being honest and straightforward,

Yes, but it is well known that various verses from the Quran conflict with each other, which brings up the principle of abrogation.

You allege a contradiction when there isn’t one. A spear doesn’t have to go all the way to the heart from the abdomen in order for blood to rush out. A not too deep wound can also cause a sudden or immediate flow of blood.

Caused, as you imagine, by a “beating heart?” Not likely.
Now you’re calling this a sudden flow of blood, whereas before you were claiming it was indicitive of a "pumping heart. "

You keep denying that you said this, but your own posts betray you:

*John 19:34 MSG The Message One of the soldiers stabbed him in the side with his spear. Blood and water gushed out.

John 19:34 NIV: New International Version: Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.*

The word sudden also indicates a pumping heart. Other translations state ‘immediately’, ‘forthwith’, ‘at once’, ‘right away’, all suggesting a pumping heart.

I wish you’d make up your mind. I can’t argue against both of your personalities.

The only way Origen could explain the blood flow was to describe it as a miracle, and this Christian author (Blomberg) likewise resorted to explain the unusually quick supposed death by suggesting it was voluntary. In other words, you shut your eyes to reasoning and become irrational and still insist that your notions should be accepted blindly.

It had to be a miracle if it followed your self-contradictory conjecture.

Anyone reading the Biblical text with a logical mind can see the bowing of the head occurred immediately following the finishing of the drink. Connecting the two occurrences is not rocket science, it is common sense:

John 19:30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Ahh, so now He was also poisioned? And it took effect that rapidly? On a man that has been tortured nearly to death and lost so much blood?

That alone could have killed Him. Another miracle!

I though that Muslims claimed to believe the Gospels. Do you think that when Jesus “gave up his spirit” that part was a lie?

Yes you did, because you were making a straw-man argument, as I have explained already.

As you mischaracterized, as I have explained already.