Was Jesus really crucified

[bahous]

I have this question

who can give the answer

[ps49]

What answer will you accept?

[PeteWaldo]

What answer will you accept?

Certainly not the one that is revealed through the Gospel, which is the basis of the whole subject of the Gospel. Muhammad's followers are filled with complete resolve, not what to believe, but what to disbelieve. The Islamic faith is faith in disbelief of the things of the God of the scriptures. An exact inversion of the Gospel.

He already ignored the answer to his question, as revealed through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the last time it was shown to him:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4807.msg18625#msg18625

Just as he ignored all of our other questions and points, chronically breaking the pledge he took when he joined.

[bahous]

What answer will you accept?

I want evidence that Jesus was indeed crucified

[ps49]

What answer will you accept?

I want evidence that Jesus was indeed crucified

Well, what evidence have you found already? What are the best evidences - both for and against the historic crucifixion of Jesus Christ? 

[PeteWaldo]

What answer will you accept?

I want evidence that Jesus was indeed crucified

I showed you the testimonies of contemporaries of Jesus that lived during the time of the event. In that same post I showed you compelling evidence that it was fulfillment of Bible prophecy that was written many hundreds of years in advance, and even hundreds of years before crucifixion was ever even invented.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4807.msg18579#msg18579
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

There are a lot of related videos in this forum section including archaeology and how it ever increasingly confirms the scriptures as a reliable record of ancient history:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0

The Case for a Creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI

Now compare that with the absence of evidence that Muhammad even existed:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4708.0

And the absence of even a shred of evidence, that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD when pagan migrants from Yemen initially settled the area.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/

Things don't magically become true, simply because you may wish they were, my friend.

[ps49]

PeteWaldo - if bahous is genuinely interested in the question he raises then it's reasonable to assume that he has already researched the subject to some degree. Therefore I would like to know of the evidences he has so far found, both for and against the crucifixion of Christ.  Only from there can we make properly reasoned comments that might take the discussion forwards.

[PeteWaldo]

PeteWaldo - if bahous is genuinely interested in the question he raises then it's reasonable to assume that he has already researched the subject to some degree.

We don't need to assume he has some familiarity, at least with the bible, if he was being honest when he earlier posted:
"I am studying bible for over 22 years Sir Wald.  i tell you the truth. i have any purposes only to tell you the truth."

But his posting has belied that stated purpose since he could only pick on Paul in a non-substantive proof-texted false presumptive fashion, and as yet has failed to respond to why he rejects the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Like and John, to follow Muhammad alone. Which is also why he repeatedly failed to respond to how he reconciles his rejection of the Gospel, with Muhammad telling the people of the Gospel to go by what God revealed therein.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4807.msg18603#msg18603

Therefore I would like to know of the evidences he has so far found, both for and against the crucifixion of Christ.

There has certainly been nothing stopping him from offering you one of his rare responses. Indeed one of the only substantive responses has offered us thus far was when he posted "have not breathed a word of the Gospel of Barnabas", indicating he at least has some familiarity with it. Yet that's pretty much the only place he could come up with that Muhammad is the Messiah business.

Only from there can we make properly reasoned comments that might take the discussion forwards.

I post in this forum not only for the benefit of those I am conversing with, but for non-member readers of the forum as well, particularly to not leave them hanging short of information, if our friend is taking a temporary or lasting pause for reflection. I post for the benefit of those true seekers that happen to stop by the forum.

If you want to engage in a private conversation I recommend you PM him.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1536
The problem with PMs is that other Muslims cannot benefit from the exchange.

[bahous]

council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us.
67
Luke 22/70 :"And he saith to them: If I shall tell you,you will not believe me. 68And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 But hereafter the Son of man shall be sit-
ting on the right hand of the power of God.70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am


wich means the prisoner has rejected he was the messiah.

[ExMilitary]

council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us.
67
Luke 22/70 :"And he saith to them: If I shall tell you,you will not believe me. 68And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 But hereafter the Son of man shall be sit-
ting on the right hand of the power of God.70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am


wich means the prisoner has rejected he was the messiah.

Ignoring the fact that you aren't addressing the crucifixion...

The expression is equivalent to "It is as you have said."  This is affirmed by the very next verse... "We have heard it from His own mouth".  Which is affirmed by the very next two verses "saying HIMSELF that he is Christ".

Christ is connected to "Son of God" by Peter when he refers to Jesus as "Christ the Son of the Living God"  Which Jesus AFFIRMS to Peter.

In John 4:25-26 - The woman talks about Messiah coming, and Jesus' response is "I am He"

Unless you flatly reject the Bible (which you cannot without ignoring Muhammad's own words), there can be no doubt that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Christ, etc.  To say otherwise reveals your desire to disbelieve the simplest interpretation of what is plainly stated.  It is simple, it is plain.  Jesus isn't merely implying that He is the Messiah, He is stating that He is the Messiah.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.  Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

[bahous]

council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us.
67
Luke 22/70 :"And he saith to them: If I shall tell you,you will not believe me. 68And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 But hereafter the Son of man shall be sit-
ting on the right hand of the power of God.70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am


wich means the prisoner has rejected he was the messiah.

Ignoring the fact that you aren't addressing the crucifixion...

The expression is equivalent to "It is as you have said."  This is affirmed by the very next verse... "We have heard it from His own mouth".  Which is affirmed by the very next two verses "saying HIMSELF that he is Christ".

Christ is connected to "Son of God" by Peter when he refers to Jesus as "Christ the Son of the Living God"  Which Jesus AFFIRMS to Peter.

In John 4:25-26 - The woman talks about Messiah coming, and Jesus' response is "I am He"

Unless you flatly reject the Bible (which you cannot without ignoring Muhammad's own words), there can be no doubt that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Christ, etc.  To say otherwise reveals your desire to disbelieve the simplest interpretation of what is plainly stated.  It is simple, it is plain.  Jesus isn't merely implying that He is the Messiah, He is stating that He is the Messiah.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.  Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I speak of the trial of the prisoner before the Jewish court

22/70 Luke recounts the response of detainee before Caiphas

[ExMilitary]

council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us.
67
Luke 22/70 :"And he saith to them: If I shall tell you,you will not believe me. 68And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 But hereafter the Son of man shall be sit-
ting on the right hand of the power of God.70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am


wich means the prisoner has rejected he was the messiah.

Ignoring the fact that you aren't addressing the crucifixion...

The expression is equivalent to "It is as you have said."  This is affirmed by the very next verse... "We have heard it from His own mouth".  Which is affirmed by the very next two verses "saying HIMSELF that he is Christ".

Christ is connected to "Son of God" by Peter when he refers to Jesus as "Christ the Son of the Living God"  Which Jesus AFFIRMS to Peter.

In John 4:25-26 - The woman talks about Messiah coming, and Jesus' response is "I am He"

Unless you flatly reject the Bible (which you cannot without ignoring Muhammad's own words), there can be no doubt that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Christ, etc.  To say otherwise reveals your desire to disbelieve the simplest interpretation of what is plainly stated.  It is simple, it is plain.  Jesus isn't merely implying that He is the Messiah, He is stating that He is the Messiah.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.  Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I speak of the trial of the prisoner before the Jewish court

22/70 Luke recounts the response of detainee before Caiphas

Please read the response I wrote.  The very beginning of my response refers to the same passage you referred to.  It then continues to draw proof from other parts of scripture that your prophet says are true.  Jesus plainly says, "I... am he"... the Messiah.

To continue to deny this is to be foolish and willfully blind.

[bahous]

Luke 22/70: " 70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son
of God? Who said: You say that I am.


this verse means the prisoner has refused to rcognize he was Jesus.

it is the response of a desperate man and bothered

[ps49]

Luke 22/70: " 70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son
of God? Who said: You say that I am.


this verse means the prisoner has refused to rcognize he was Jesus.

it is the response of a desperate man and bothered

The New King James Version renders verse 70 more clearly for you:-

66 As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying,  67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.”

But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe.  68 And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go. [j]  69 Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.”

70 Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?”

So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”

71 And they said, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

Then you can read on into chapter 23 to see what happens next:-

Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate.  2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”

3 Then Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

He answered him and said, “It is as you say.”

4 So Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no fault in this Man.”

5 But they were the more fierce, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place.”

Then you can carry on reading the rest of Luke to the end. You will see that the Jews (the disbelieving ones that is) did crucify Jesus for claiming to be the prophesised Jewish Messiah, The Son of God and Saviour of the World. In an attempt to garner support from their Roman rulers, they concocted false allegations against Jesus, such as saying that He stirred up trouble in the Roman province and told people not to pay taxes to caesar. Apparently they had no problem in violating the sixth, ninth and tenth commandments detailed in Exodus 20:-

“You shall not murder"
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” (They envied His huge following and the progress He was making)

In the end Pilate the Roman governor grudgingly concedes to the Jews demands but he did so purely in an attempt to keep the peace. Tiberius Caesar would not have looked favourably upon Pilate if he were to let things spiral out of control in the region - a fact that the Jews well knew and took full advantage of.  If anybody is desperate and bothered here then it is Pilate the Roman governor.

You seem to have trouble properly comprehending the narrative as a whole.  The Bible reads as a flowing narrative to describe events and what was said as they happened. For that reason it is generally unwise to pick out single verses for particular scrutiny. That might work when studying the Quran (which is more of an abstract collection of sayings) but not so with the Bible. The risk of misunderstanding a single verse out of context is very high.

[ExMilitary]

Oh, I get it.  I was sort of lost for a second, but I think bahous is suggesting that the respondent in verse 70 is not Jesus, but rather, a different person altogether that was crucified in his place.

However, you'd have to rip that one verse out of it's complete context to arrive at that conclusion.  Verses 22:63 and 23:8 are still connected to the same "HE" that responded in 22:70, and 22:63 and 23:8 (both surrounding 22:70) plainly state that the person in 22:70 is, indeed, Jesus... the same was crucified and rose, the same was Messiah.

Bahous,

1.  Why do you believe this prisoner is not Jesus when all surrounding verses say that the prisoner IS Jesus?
2.  Why do you say Jesus never claimed to be Messiah when he plainly did?

[ps49]

I think bahous is giving us the run around.  It's obvious that he's been reading the so called "gospel of Barnabas" which is a 16th century Muslim forgery designed to promote Muhammed and Islam in Europe. He won't admit to it, but bahous is now desperately trying to reconcile what this diabolical text says with our four canonical Gospels. A foolish and futile task.

Key points of this disgusting and ridiculous forgery:-

1) It denies the crucifixion of Jesus, instead claiming that somebody else, who was made to look like Jesus was sent to Pilate, tried and crucified.

2) It has Jesus claiming not to be the Messiah but instead the one who predicts the coming of Messiah. Essentially putting Jesus in the place of John the Baptist, who is conveniently absent from this text.

3) It claims that The Messiah is not of the seed of Isaac, Jacob and David but from the seed of Ishmael istead.

4) It predicts Muhammed by name, as God's messenger and Messiah.

5) It is distinctly anti-Pauline, claiming that Paul was foolish and deceived.

The forger obviously had no understanding of the Old Testament prophecies concerning The Jewish Messiah.

So bahous, is the 16th century Islamic forgery, the so called gospel of Barnabas your main evidence against the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

[PeteWaldo]

I think bahous is giving us the run around.  It's obvious that he's been reading the so called "gospel of Barnabas" which is a 16th century Muslim forgery designed to promote Muhammed and Islam in Europe.

Lying is perfectly acceptable, even obligatory, while proselytizing for Islam:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/global_war_against_truth.htm#dissimulation

He won't admit to it, but bahous is now desperately trying to reconcile what this diabolical text says with our four canonical Gospels. A foolish and futile task.

Let alone that it is completely and totally non-Islamic for him to deny that Jesus is the Messiah. That's why I credited him with following a god of his own creation.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4807.msg18471#msg18471

Key points of this disgusting and ridiculous forgery:-

1) It denies the crucifixion of Jesus, instead claiming that somebody else, who was made to look like Jesus was sent to Pilate, tried and crucified.

I believe I tracked down the source of Muhammad's denial of the crucifixion. It originated with Simon Magus and was transmitted through one of his disciples Basilides, and was picked up by the 2nd century occult cult of the Ebionites. Muhammad got it from his wife Khadijah's cousin Waraqa bin Naufal who was an occult Ebionite priest. Muhammadans parrot almost word for word what Basilides taught:

Chapter XXIV.—Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides.

4.  "He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#basilides

2) It has Jesus claiming not to be the Messiah but instead the one who predicts the coming of Messiah. Essentially putting Jesus in the place of John the Baptist, who is conveniently absent from this text.

3) It claims that The Messiah is not of the seed of Isaac, Jacob and David but from the seed of Ishmael istead.

4) It predicts Muhammed by name, as God's messenger and Messiah.

It also cites a currency by name that was not in use until the middle ages.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/gospel_of_barnabas.htm

5) It is distinctly anti-Pauline, claiming that Paul was foolish and deceived.

The forger obviously had no understanding of the Old Testament prophecies concerning The Jewish Messiah.

So bahous, is the 16th century Islamic forgery, the so called gospel of Barnabas your main evidence against the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

He's the first Muslim I have come across who attempted to spin his way into it. All of the others ran away once they found out it labels Muhammad as the Messiah. I don't think our friend expected us to be prepared. There used to be a lot of Muslim videos on YouTube regarding the Gospel of Barnabas, until I embarrassed them all into removing their videos, through my comments on them.
There used to be a lot of Muslim videos peddling the Baca=Mecca nonsense until I did the same to them:
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm

[Bistabuster]

It must be.  He left and didn't answer that question!

[ps49]

Yes, well if you review bahous' posts from the beginning, when he joined this forum, you will see that his viewpoint corresponds very closely with the five key points I listed to summarise the 16th century Islamic forgery known as the "gospel of Barnabas". 

It doesn't seem to matter to him that this text is in clear conflict with the Quran in that it falsely and laughably labels Muhammed as The Jewish Messiah.  I think he saw it as a great weapon to beat Christians with, and that is seemingly more alluring than actually being faithful to the Quran. Quite obviously he is desperate to undermine Christian faith at whatever cost and by any means necessary - even if that means contradicting Muhammed!  A desperate, ugly and worthless state of mind in my opinion.

[bahous]

So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”

your bible is falsified

Americain standard version

Luke 22/70: "  And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth


Common English version

Luke 22/70:"  They all said, "Are you God's Son, then?" He replied, "You say that I am."
71 Then they said, "Why do we need further testimony? We've heard it from his own lips."

English standard version

 70 So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.


good news translation

 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right side of Almighty God."
70 They all said, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He answered them, "You say that I am."
71 And they said, "We don't need any witnesses! We ourselves have heard what he said!"
CSb

 70 They all asked, "Are You, then, the Son of God?" And He said to them, "You say that I am."

Jubilee bible 2000
0 Then they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I AM.
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

james King version

 Hereafter * shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am .


Lexham English bible

 70 So they all said, "Are you then the Son of God?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
71 And they said, "Why do we have need [of] further testimony? For [we] ourselves have heard [it] from his mouth!"

RHE Bible

70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am.
71 And they said: What need we any further testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.


 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

71 "Why do we need any more testimony," they said, "since we've heard it ourselves from His mouth?"

NIV version
 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”


New living translation

 70 They all shouted, “So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?” And he replied, “You say that I am.”
71 “Why do we need other witnesses?” they said. “We ourselves heard him say it.”

New revised standard

"
70 All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say that I am."
71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!"
revised standard version

 70 And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
71 And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."


you can see all the versions relate : you say that I am. don't pay attention to liar like your version in wich it is written: you are rightly say it.


this means one thing: that the prisoner was not Jesus.


this is the miracle of Muhammed (SAWS)

[ExMilitary]

[...snip...]
 70 And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
71 And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."


you can see all the versions relate : you say that I am. don't pay attention to liar like your version in wich it is written: you are rightly say it.

Bahous, what do the 8 verses after these say? (23:1-8)  Has Muhammad taught you to fear what these 8 verses actually say?  I think so.

[Bistabuster]

Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can never understand the deity of Jesus Christ.

With that said, forcing an individual to convert to Christianity is no good.
If an atheist converted to Islam, there is no change to the heart.  You're still separated from God.  Your heart really hasn't changed. 

[ps49]

Americain standard version

Luke 22/70: "  And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth

How is the response "Ye say that I am" a denial?

Why do the members of the Sanhedrin then react the way they do in verse 71? What did they hear "from his own mouth" which was so offensive to them? Surely not a denial...

"Ye say that I AM" - Jesus accepts their question "Art thou then the Son of God?" in the affirmative and that is what angered them to the point of murder.

I don't think they would have sent Him to Pilate for denying the charges! As far as they (the Sanhedrin) were concerned, Jesus was quilty of blasphemy, for claiming to be The Messiah. The Jews understood The Messiah to be synonymous with "Son of God," which is why they ask the question.

[bahous]

Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can never understand the deity of Jesus Christ.

With that said, forcing an individual to convert to Christianity is no good.
If an atheist converted to Islam, there is no change to the heart.  You're still separated from God.  Your heart really hasn't changed.

Holy spirit does not assist pagans. whorshipper of Jesus.

it's a manner to accept lies

[bahous]

Americain standard version

Luke 22/70: "  And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth

How is the response "Ye say that I am" a denial?

yes it is.

in all the language it is a denial .when you say to me: you are arrogant and I respond : you say that I am arrogant. this response is a denial yes of course



the council didn't believe the detainee he was not Jesus.

its a good oportunity given to the jewish council to get rid of what they had believed Jesus.