Was Jesus really crucified

[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?

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.

Ok, let's see where this goes... some questions I have for you:-

1) Who do you think the prisoner is, if not Jesus?
2) Would Jesus allow another to wrongfully suffer in His place?  Would you call such behaviour righteous?
3) How do you reconcile Mark 14:61-63 into your view point?

Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?

4) How could it be that Judas Iscariot identified the wrong man in the garden of Gethsemane?

Luke 22:47-51 47 While he yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

Judas knew Him and identified Jesus to the men. In verse 48 Judas identifies Jesus (with a kiss) who then identifies Himself as "the Son of Man", ie The Messiah. Who else but Jesus would identify as such?

Furthermore, in verse 51, this same man then goes on to perform a miracle of healing. This is not something an imposter could do and therefore Luke positively identifies the arrested man as Jesus and The Messiah, The Son of God. Therefore it must be Jesus standing before the Sanhedrin in Luke 22:70.

[bahous]

Ok, let's see where this goes... some questions I have for you:-

1) Who do you think the prisoner is, if not Jesus?

the prisoner woul be Judas Iscariote. it is the cursed of God. translator of Mathiew and Matthew and Luke contradict on the end of Judas

2) Would Jesus allow another to wrongfully suffer in His place?  Would you call such behaviour righteous?

 crucifying Jesus is throw discredit on Jesus.

a hanged on a tree is cursed . God does not allow it . because there is the credibility of Jesus.

God punishes the criminal and relieve  the saint.

3) How do you reconcile Mark 14:61-63 into your view point?

Mark's text is undoubtedly false ; because it is in contradiction with six parallel texts.
when we want to be clear we can . if all the texts were like the text of Mark there would have been no propblèmes . it would be in the certainty that Jesus has indeed been crucifé .

[ps49]

Ok, let's see where this goes... some questions I have for you:-

1) Who do you think the prisoner is, if not Jesus?

the prisoner woul be Judas Iscariote. it is the cursed of God. translator of Mathiew and Matthew and Luke contradict on the end of Judas

This is pure unsubstantiated fiction though. Where does it say that Judas took the place of Jesus on the cross?

2) Would Jesus allow another to wrongfully suffer in His place?  Would you call such behaviour righteous?

 crucifying Jesus is throw discredit on Jesus.

a hanged on a tree is cursed . God does not allow it . because there is the credibility of Jesus.

God punishes the criminal and relieve  the saint.

Christians see Jesus' crucifixion as being entirely voluntary and to His righteous credit, beyond measure, in the service of God and man.

Do you not see the problem here? A man who willingly stands by and lets another suffer in his place is far from righteous. Yet that is the Islamic take on their second greatest prophet! That is what Islam reduces the name of Jesus to - a coward who silently lets another shoulder the consequences of his preaching. Of course the greatest of Islamic "prophets", Muhammed, was far worse so I suppose it isn't a problem for you.

"God punishes the criminal and relieve  the saint" - you've obviously not read the books of Job or Jonah or indeed Malachi from the Old Testament. It doesn't always work as you expect. God causes the sun to shine on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Apart from that, Muhammed died an awful and prolonged death at the hands of a female Jew! How does that fit your belief set?

3) How do you reconcile Mark 14:61-63 into your view point?

Mark's text is undoubtedly false ; because it is in contradiction with six parallel texts.
when we want to be clear we can . if all the texts were like the text of Mark there would have been no propblèmes . it would be in the certainty that Jesus has indeed been crucifé .

I think you mean Mark's text is harder for you to twist to fit your preconceived and imagined ideas! God saw fit to give us four genuine gospels for situations such as this...

And you still have my 4th question to answer:-

4) How could it be that Judas Iscariot identified the wrong man in the garden of Gethsemane?

Luke 22:47-51 47 While he yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

Judas knew Him and identified Jesus to the men. In verse 48 Judas identifies Jesus (with a kiss) who then identifies Himself as "the Son of Man", ie The Messiah. Who else but Jesus would identify as such?

Furthermore, in verse 51, this same man then goes on to perform a miracle of healing. This is not something an imposter could do and therefore Luke positively identifies the arrested man as Jesus and The Messiah, The Son of God. Therefore it must be Jesus standing before the Sanhedrin in Luke 22:70.

[ExMilitary]

Mark's text is undoubtedly false ; because it is in contradiction with six parallel texts.
when we want to be clear we can . if all the texts were like the text of Mark there would have been no propblèmes . it would be in the certainty that Jesus has indeed been crucifé .

Mark's text is precisely the same as it was around 600-700 AD when Muhammad encourages people to search the Bible.  Did Muhammad miss this false text?  Surely, Muhammad, THE prophet of Islam wasn't encouraging people to read a false text.  Since Muhammad himself approved of the text, will you tell your prophet that he must have been mistaken?

[ps49]

Reading from from Luke 22, KJ21 version:-

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying,

67 “Art thou the Christ? Tell us.” And He said unto them, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.

Jesus' answer undoubtedly implies "Yes I am the Christ" since that is the only answer they (the Sanhedrin interrogators) would not believe.

68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me nor let Me go.

They would not answer, if He so asked, because they did not know. They had seen the signs and knew the prophecies but could not accept a lowly carpenter as their prophecised Messiah - they were internally conflicted and confused. They were expecting somebody different because they didn't quite get the meaning of the Old Testament prophecies or what it truly meant to be God's people.

69 Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”

They knew Jesus claimed to be the prophecised Son of Man and Messiah - that's why they arrested Him. Jesus subtly refers to His identity as The Messiah (The Son of Man) and His impending death.

So they continue, in their growing consternation and anger, to question Him more directly:-

70 Then said they all, “Art thou THEN the Son of God?” And He said unto them, “Ye say that I am.”

Jesus has already confessed to being the Christ and the Son of Man. The inescapable implication being that He must also claim to be the Son of God and they knew it... but just to make sure they ask this more direct question.

Jesus's answer as recorded by Luke is actually typical of the rabbinic style of speaking when not wishing to deny an accusational question: By such an answer the one interrogated accepts as his own affirmation the question put to him in its entirety. In modern English "As you say" would have the same effect.

71 And they said, “What need we any further witness? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.”

The Sanhedrin iterrogators are understandably appalled and outraged by Jesus' answers.

The rest is history..

[bahous]

Reading from from Luke 22, KJ21 version:-

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying,

67 “Art thou the Christ? Tell us.” And He said unto them, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.

Jesus' answer undoubtedly implies "Yes I am the Christ" since that is the only answer they (the Sanhedrin interrogators) would not believe.

I have already shown to you 10 versions that :" you say that I am"


this version and another are fake

[ps49]

Reading from from Luke 22, KJ21 version:-

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying,

67 “Art thou the Christ? Tell us.” And He said unto them, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.

Jesus' answer undoubtedly implies "Yes I am the Christ" since that is the only answer they (the Sanhedrin interrogators) would not believe.

I have already shown to you 10 versions that :" you say that I am"


this version and another are fake

I think you're getting confused over verses 67 and 70 - they are two different questions asked by the Sanhedrin. The KJ21 reads the same as the American Standard Version.

[bahous]

This is pure unsubstantiated fiction though. Where does it say that Judas took the place of Jesus on the cross?

because your bible are falsified. this is why there are contradictions

[ps49]

I think you have no basis for suggesting Judas was crucified.  You conclusion does not follow from the premises offered. So you invent.

[bahous]

Judas knew Him and identified Jesus to the men. In verse 48 Judas identifies Jesus (with a kiss) who then identifies Himself as "the Son of Man", ie The Messiah. Who else but Jesus would identify as such?

Peter swore by the holy name of God he did not know this man and cursed him .

[/color][/size]

The manner in which Peter entered is useful to solve this puzzle. The three Synoptic does not blow word, however they agree on the fact that the Prince of the Apostles, after they laid the charge

against him to be with Jesus of Nazareth he refused to recognize the man who appeared before the Sanhedrin and swore by the holy name of God! (Mk 14/71; MT26 / 74 Luke 22 / 56-57.). Their

goal is to instill that Peter had given, for fear of suffering the fate of his Master. But the parallel text of John, despite the apparent similarity almost to the letter with that of the Synoptics, is too

far and gives a whole other reason. This story has the merit of explaining the entrance in the palace of Peter by  the friendly intervention of another disciple with the sovereign Jewish priest who

was well known in advance of it. (John 18 / 15-17 ). So it follows that St. Peter, if he had refused to recognize the accused, it was not fear; as it was known in advance, he and the other disciple,

the high priest. Therefore Peter had neither lied nor swore falsely. The man who had appeared before the court had nothing of Jesus unless his  physical appearance. It was a sham! Let us focus on the issue of the

servant Peter! She told those who were there, they with Jesus of Nazareth and Peter answered: 'I swear I do not know the man' (MT26 / 71-72; MC14 / 67).


Peter swore by the holy name of God he did not know this man and cursed him .

it is a proof that it was not Jesus.

you say that Jesus had prophesied that Peter disowned him three times before the cock crows .

it is stupid to believe this version because the rooster always singing in the morning

[ps49]

If Peter knew that the arrested man was not Jesus, then why would he follow at all? After all, he's just been in a fight with the High Priest's men.... so you'd think the last place he would immediately go would be to the High Priest's palace!  Unless of course he had a very good reason to go - and that reason of course was that his Lord and Messiah had just been arrested.  Case closed on yet another silly argument.

[bahous]

ASV
Mathiew 26/74:" Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man"

CEB

MT26/74:"74 Then he cursed and swore, "I don't know the man!

GW

 Then Peter began to curse and swear with an oath, "I don't know the man!
GNT
 Then Peter said, "I swear that I am telling the truth! May God punish me if I am not! I do not know that man

GSB

Then he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man.

Jub
74 Then he started to curse and to swear with an oath, "I do not know the man!

Kjg
74 Then began he to curse and to swear , saying, I know not the man

LEB
Then he began to curse and to swear with an oath, "I do not know the man

RHE
hen he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man

NAS

74 Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!"

NIV
Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!

NKJV
4 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, "I do not know the Man!

NRS
Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, "I do not know the man!


all these versions prove that Peter curse the prisoner and sword he did not know him

he was not Jesus

[ps49]

So what? He was scared witless and cursing therefore, but he wasn't cursing Jesus.
Peter's only possible reason for following the arrested man to Caiaphas' palace was that it was indeed Jesus.

[ps49]

it is stupid to believe this version because the rooster always singing in the morning

And I think it's stupid to think that the arrest and trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was all over in ten minutes. It was already very late in the evening when He was arrested and the whole process would have taken hours.

[bahous]

If Peter knew that the arrested man was not Jesus, then why would he follow at all? After all, he's just been in a fight with the High Priest's men.... so you'd think the last place he would immediately go would be to the High Priest's palace!  Unless of course he had a very good reason to go - and that reason of course was that his Lord and Messiah had just been arrested.  Case closed on yet another silly argument.

Peter came to see the miraculous fact.

the man arrested had nothing of Jesus unless his physical appearace

[bahous]

If Peter knew that the arrested man was not Jesus, then why would he follow at all? After all, he's just been in a fight with the High Priest's men.... so you'd think the last place he would immediately go would be to the High Priest's palace!  Unless of course he had a very good reason to go - and that reason of course was that his Lord and Messiah had just been arrested.  Case closed on yet another silly argument.

if what you say is a very good reason , why all Apostles did not go to the high priest's palace to assist at what it had foretold in advance?

[bahous]

So what? He was scared witless and cursing therefore, but he wasn't cursing Jesus.
Peter's only possible reason for following the arrested man to Caiaphas' palace was that it was indeed Jesus.

he was cursing the detenaie . a man hung to a tree is cursed by God.

the man arrested was not Jesus. it is a good reason for Peter to curse him;

and Peter was not afraid from Caiapha becaus he was well known of him ( read the text of John).

[bahous]

it is stupid to believe this version because the rooster always singing in the morning

And I think it's stupid to think that the arrest and trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was all over in ten minutes. It was already very late in the evening when He was arrested and the whole process would have taken hours.

roosters , they always are. and a rooster does not anything  if it is not crows .

no rooster who say poetry or dance .

what you call a real prophecy is a nonsense .

I can say : tomorrow before the rooster crows four times , I have been drinking my coffee
 and this prophecy will be fulfilled and I will be a prophet


the reality is that saint Peter has assisted to a trial; he was not afraid. and he came to see the miraculous fact : the prisoner had no of Jesus unless his physical appearance


the crucified was not Jesus

[ps49]

Reading from from Luke 22, KJ21 version:-

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying,

67 “Art thou the Christ? Tell us.” And He said unto them, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.

Jesus' answer undoubtedly implies "Yes I am the Christ" since that is the only answer they (the Sanhedrin interrogators) would not believe.

I have already shown to you 10 versions that :" you say that I am"


this version and another are fake

I think you're getting confused over verses 67 and 70 - they are two different questions asked by the Sanhedrin. The KJ21 reads the same as the American Standard Version.

bahous - have you read Luke 22:67 yet? Show me a single version in which Jesus' answer is "you say that I am."
I'm 100% confident that you cannot!

[ps49]

If Peter knew that the arrested man was not Jesus, then why would he follow at all? After all, he's just been in a fight with the High Priest's men.... so you'd think the last place he would immediately go would be to the High Priest's palace!  Unless of course he had a very good reason to go - and that reason of course was that his Lord and Messiah had just been arrested.  Case closed on yet another silly argument.

Peter came to see the miraculous fact.

the man arrested had nothing of Jesus unless his physical appearace

Then why did not the other disciples follow to see this "miraculous fact?"
The answer is of course that they were scared and ran off.

[ps49]

If Peter knew that the arrested man was not Jesus, then why would he follow at all? After all, he's just been in a fight with the High Priest's men.... so you'd think the last place he would immediately go would be to the High Priest's palace!  Unless of course he had a very good reason to go - and that reason of course was that his Lord and Messiah had just been arrested.  Case closed on yet another silly argument.

if what you say is a very good reason , why all Apostles did not go to the high priest's palace to assist at what it had foretold in advance?

Again, because they were too scared to follow. Remember, they had just been involved in a fight with the priest's men.

Peter, being one of the more headstrong, plucked up the courage to follow, but even so, only from a distance.  When he arrived, note that he was too afraid to actually enter the house, until coaxed in by the other disciple.

Subsequently, when challenged about being one of Jesus' disciples, three times did Peter's courage fail him. Peter cursed and denied knowing Jesus three times and then the cock crowed as prophecised by Jesus. Only people who are scared or angry curse and Peter was both.

Interestingly, it seems it was necessary for Peter to follow Jesus to the priest's house so that this prophecy could be fulfilled. How else could he have been given the three opportunities to deny knowing Jesus, the arrested man?

[ps49]

From Matthew chapter 26:-

74 Then he began to curse and to swear, saying, “I know not the man!” And IMMEDIATELY the cock crowed.

75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, when He said unto him, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

In verse 74, the man Peter denied knowing was the arrested man standing trial before the Sanhedrin.
Verse 75 therefore proves without doubt that Peter believed that man to be Jesus.

[PeteWaldo]

it is stupid to believe this version because the rooster always singing in the morning

And I think it's stupid to think that the arrest and trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was all over in ten minutes. It was already very late in the evening when He was arrested and the whole process would have taken hours.

roosters , they always are. and a rooster does not anything  if it is not crows .

no rooster who say poetry or dance .

what you call a real prophecy is a nonsense .

I can say : tomorrow before the rooster crows four times , I have been drinking my coffee
 and this prophecy will be fulfilled and I will be a prophet


the reality is that saint Peter has assisted to a trial; he was not afraid. and he came to see the miraculous fact : the prisoner had no of Jesus unless his physical appearance


the crucified was not Jesus

But the fable that Jesus was not crucified comes from the first century sorcerer Simon Magus, who wanted to be a disciple of Jesus (and was even baptized), but when the disciples realized he only wanted the power of the Holy Spirit so he could profit from it, as he did his magic, the disciples rejected him.
After which he went out to specifically contend against the disciples and the Gospel.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#simon_magus

Simon Magus was followed by several of his students one of which was named Bascilides. Here is what Basilides embellished Simon Magus' lies with:

"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

Doesn't that read just like some Muslim's accounts you can find online today? Well that shouldn't be a surprise because the 2nd century gnostic occult cult of the Ebionites picked up Bisilides lies, and eventually Muhammad received the lies through his wife Kadijah's cousin Waraqa bin Naufal who was an occult Ebionite priest. So your denial of the crucifixion of Christ comes was handed down from a popular 1st century sorcerer named Simon Magus. Can you see how Satan is all up in your DISbelief?