Gospels Dilemma Words Not Heard!!!!!!!!

There are multiple events in the Bible where Jesus is quoted but, given the situation, it would have been impossible for anyone to have heard what he said. Here are two the the events where we will show how christians are absolutely deluded for believing in such a lie written by unknown men's trying to make an earner lol... Firstly we shall read a small passage before the alleged crucifixion then jump to the actual alleged crucifixion and I'll leave the rest for you guys...

-----------------------------

The incident Just Before the Crucifixion as follows:

And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:41-42)

Notice from the above passage it says a Stones cast !!  A stones throw is pretty far. Why go a “stone’s cast away? To get privacy. Jesus advocated private and quiet prayer.. as in a closet like found in Matthew 6:5. Therefore, how does anyone know what Jesus said if he was a stone’s cast withdrawn from them? So, here in Luke 22:41-42 we have words attributed to Jesus that no one could have heard or known..... How did Luke record such a prayer since he had no Holy Spirit helping him nor was he there? Luke 1:1 tells us Luke  heard from others......this begs the question how did that other unknown person hear the plea???? Let's get to our next smashing point.

------------------------------

During the alleged Crucifixion as follows :

And one of the malefactorswhich were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:39-43)

Now just who was it that recorded that conversation? Luke was not present at the crucifixion. None of the apostles were there. They had all run off.

Furthermore, it would have been impossible for anyone to have heard the conversation. The three were talking to each other, not shouting – note the verb used to describe the conversation; “saying”, “said unto Jesus”, “Jesus said”. In their agony they were carrying on a normal conversation that no one could possibly have heard.

Here is an unusual bit of evidence that this observation is correct. Apparently, Filipino devotees have themselves nailed to the cross every Good Friday. This year (2015), a microphone was attached near their mouths so the perverse onlookers could hear their words. Well, there was a glitch in the microphones so NO ONE HEARD WHAT THEY SAID. Copy the link and read the article  (http://  nypost.com/2015/04/03/filipino-devotees-nail-selves-to-cross-in-crucifixion-reenactment/)

It appears that these are very important words; what Jesus said while he was on the cross. Why have not the other three apostles reported this conversation? Because it never happened and even if it did, it could not have been heard and even if it could have been heard, there was no one there to record it. Remember, the apostles had all run off Mark 14:50 The whole thing is fabricated by whoever wrote Luke.

Corrupted texts!

 I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament.  I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages.

I was wrong.

The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after theMasoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.

Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:

1. The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
2. The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
3. The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
4. The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
5. The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.

Receiving Corrupted Texts

Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe?  Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text?  Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

History says “no” . . .

Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.  

A stream cannot rise higher than its source.  If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.

Epic failure of a so called Christian apologist

Korede will never learn, its time you retire

Korede a nigerian Christian apologist made such a pathetic post on Facebook, I couldn't stop laughing lol. He wrote he will show where Jesus said he is God, I was like WHAT BIBLE IS KOREDE READING!!!! Academic scholars agree there is not such a verse to be found in the entire NT, so where did Korede pull out such a verse.. However after reading koredes joke evidence I thought Korede your times up now u need to retire lol

This is what he wrote read below  :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ IT YOURSELF

20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?

23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

[Luke 5:20 - 24]

FOR EMPHASIS

--------------------

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's analyse the passage Korede posted, so here we have a situation where Jesus is healing anyone that came to him along side a paralysed man, first reverse back to verse 17 and read 

17 One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 

THE POWER OF THE LORD WAS WITH JESUS? But Korede said Jesus was god?

Let's carry on the scribes and Pharisees said only God can forgive sins..? Did Jesus  call himself  God, Or did the scribes and Pharisees call him God? NEITHER.

They only said amongst themselves only God forgives sins which he does  not that they considered Jesus to be God nor did Jesus consider himself to be God

Just because the scribes Pharisees / Jews said that doesn't make him God, if that's the case what about all the other allegations and names they called Jesus 

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" (John 8:48)

"You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you?"

  (John 7:20)

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casts he out devils. (Mark 3:22)

Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

(John 10:20)

Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner perform such signs?" So they were divided. (John 9:16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even his family said he is insane

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:21)

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (Matthew 4:8)

The devil took Jesus up the a very high mountain?? How can the devil take Jesus up unless he possessed or hypnotised him??

What about Jesus calling the Jews god?

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?

(John 10:34)

What's even more absurd is that Korede intentionally deceived his people, he's well aware even the disciples were able to forgive sins :

Disciples were also able to forgive sins 

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:22:23)

Shall we conclude that Jesus was also possessed and a sinner just because the Jews said so? If agree with Korede then yes !

Yahweh Puts TERROR and FEAR upon moses so his enemy tremble!!

And from Bamoth [in] the valley that [is] in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon. And the LORD said to Moses: Arise and jorney and pass the stream of Arnon. And see that I give in your hand Sihon king of Heshbon of Amorites. And begin to possess his land and anger him in war. As today I will begin to put TERROR AND FEAR of you upon the nation under all heavens. And when they will hear you, they shall fear and be an anguish from you.

(Numbers 21:20 Samaritan Torah)

------------------------------

Prayer to yahweh!!

Strike them with TERROR, LORD; let the nations know they are only mortal.

(Psalms 9:20 Masoretic tanak)

----------------------------

Yahweh sending terror !!

"I will send my TERROR ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.

(Exodus 23:27 Masoretic Torah )

-------------------------------

Punishment for those who disobey!!

I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you TERROR, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. (Leviticus 26:16 Masoretic Torah )

Take your pick

Abu Hurayra stated, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The most perfect of believers in belief is the best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women.'"

 Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’, nr  278. [at-Tirmidhi]

   

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "A believing man should not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes something in her character, he should be pleased with some other ­ or another­ trait of hers." [Muslim]

(Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’, nr. 275)

------------------------------------------------------

Torah/ Talmud

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

commentary on the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. a husband may beat a sinning wife (Hilkhos Ishus 21:10),

(Responsa Binyamin Ze’ev, no. 88). The first three of the five pages of the responsum reflect a very negative attitude toward wife beating. However, on the fourth page, R. Binyamin Ze’ev adds a qualification — that a husband may beat his wife to prevent her from sinning, which includes cursing him or his parents. In other words, R. Binyamin Ze’ev adopts the first view.

If the husband’s property is damaged, compensation is paid to him. He is not only the owner of his wife, he is also the owner of her pregnancy (Ex. 21:22). All of this may have contributed to an attitude that there was nothing wrong with physically abusing women. Although the word ??? (strike, blow, hit, beat) appears in the Bible, it is not associated with wifebeating until the Talmud.

If a husband declares, 'I will neither feed nor provide for my wife', he is compelled to grant her a divorce...If bad breath is a justification for such compulsion [as stated in the above mishnah] her very life is far more so.

(Talmud y.Gitt. 9:9)

A man may divorce his wife if she has merely spoiled a dish for him,

He may also divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b).

It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Pesahim 111a.

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives which obliged their husbands to divorce them: "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband" (Git. 89a). 

The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years): "Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her" (Yeb. 64a).

One sage, Rabbi Eliezer, went further to forbid teaching Torah to daughters by comparing it to the teaching of “tiflut” (Sotah 21b).

Paul and his lies!

Another unreliable passage by lying paul 500 witnesses?? 

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 15:6

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the question is who were these 500 people, that the entire 4 gospels were unaware off? None of the 4 gospels even after contradicting each other throughout mention Jesus meeting a mass of people!!

Bear in mind Paul was writing about twenty-five years after the crucifixion contends, without giving a geographic location, 

How come we have no testimony from any of these five hundred people? How come none of these five hundred people ever wrote anything regarding their experiences when they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus?

Challenge to Christians, can you if not all just provide with the names of 50 witnesses out of the 500 if you dare lol... 

can a Christian be a gay bible says yes !

It's ok according to Jesus of the bible 

Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." This suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it to everyone.

Think of this nothing going inside a man defiles him? Not even Penis of another man!!!!!!!! 

If you disagree show us a passage where Jesus condemned homosexuality? According to the NT Jesus never condemned homosexuality!

'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

(Leviticus 18:22)

---------------------

One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

(John 13:23)

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"

(John 13:25)

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

(John 21:7)

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

(John 21:20)

---------------------------------------------------------------

"In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way. Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a class by himself. 

During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand." 

"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha." 

The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter 10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. 

"J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." 

Not a shred of evidence

The curtains of the temple were torn during an earthquake, yet not a shred of evidence of this mysterious event. Not a single Jewish rabbi or scribe made mentioned of such a great event how comes?

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. (Matthew 27:51)

----------------------

Not a shred of evidence from Jewish (antiquity) sources outside the bible. Nothing mentioned from historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Philo. The Talmud doesn't even give a hint, that the TEMPLE CURTAINS WERE TORN IN HALF OR AN EARTHQUAKE HAPPENED HOW COME?

Christian website evidence for Christianity had this to say when someone posted a similar question :

"As far as I know there is not other written source confirming this particular event other than the gospels. It is highly doubtful that any Jews would have reported this incident (other than those who converted to Christianity, of whom there were many). It would have been an embarrassment. In fact, we have relatively few Jewish writers from this time who reported day-to-day events, so the likelihood of this particular event showing up in another extant writing would be quite remote."

---------------------------

What a shame can you imagine an event so sacred to Christians have no historical credibility. No primary to prove this to be true? Not a single outside historical evidence is available

Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. In this work, Edersheim states

The Veils before the Most Holy Place were 40 cubits (60 feet) long, and 20 (30 feet) wide, of the thickness of the palm of the hand, and wrought in 72 squares, which were joined together; and these Veils were so heavy, that, in the exaggerated language of the time, it needed 300 priests to manipulate each. If the Veil was at all such as is described in the Talmud, it could not have been rent in twain by a mere earthquake or the fall of the lintel, although its composition in squares fastened together might explain, how the rent might be as described in the Gospel.

Edersheim does not specifically document the statement about the veil’s thickness, but in the context refers to Talmudic sources. Continuing searches brought up Maurice Henry Harris, Hebraic Literature: Translations from the Talmud, Midrashim and Kabbala (M. Walter Dunne, 1901). In this work, we find:

Three hundred priests were told off [sic; the idea is that they were designated] to draw the veil (of the Temple) aside; for it is taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel declared in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Sagan (or high priest’s substitute), that the thickness of the veil was a handbreadth. It was woven of seventy-two cords, and each cord consisted of twenty-four strands. It was forty cubits long and twenty wide. Eighty-two myriads of damsels worked at it, and two such veils were made every year. When it became soiled, it took three hundred priests to immerse and cleanse it. Chullin (Harris, pp. 195-96)

This quotation references a passage from the Mishnah, the early codification of Judaism’s “oral law” — explanations of the Torah. Here is the passage from Herbert Danby’s translation of the Mishnah:

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simeon son of the Prefect: The veil was one handbreadth thick and was woven on [a loom having] seventy-two rods, and over each rod were twenty-four threads. Its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits; it was made by eighty-two young girls, and they used to make two in every year; and three hundred priests immersed it. (p. 161, bracketed material is part of the original quote, not my addition.)

A curtain so thick and wide cannot tear like paper. This a pure nonsense. No wonder the Jews had a problem with this pathetic story.


--------------------

Korede wrote:

What's the Historical evidence that some Jews were turned into Apes by Allah?

Response : before you Jump to the Quran, maybe you should answer what your book says, since it was available 600 years before the Quran. what is the historical evidence that Lots wife turned into salt? can you prove it historically?

And just for the record. Jews do believe some people were turned into apes, during the tower of babel.

----------------------

THE GENERATION OF THE DIVISION, [THEY] HAVE NO PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME, etc. What did they do? — The [scholars of] the school of Rabbi Shila taught: [They said,] ‘Let us build a tower, ascend to heaven, and cleave it with axes that its waters might gush forth.’ In the West [Eretz Yisrael] they laughed at this: If so, they should have built it on a mountain! (Rather) Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Elazar said: They split up into three parties. One said, ‘Let us ascend and dwell there’; the second, ‘Let us ascend and worship the gods (lit., serve the stars)’; and the third said, ‘Let us ascend and wage war [with God].’ The party which proposed ‘Let us ascend, and dwell there’ — the Lord scattered them. The one that said, ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons. Whilst as for the party which said, ‘Let us ascend and serve idols’ — ‘for there the Lord did confound the language of all the earth.’ It has been taught: Rabbi Natan said: They were all bent on idolatry. Here it is written, ‘let us make us a name,’ while elsewhere it is written, ‘…and make no mention of the name of other gods’ (Shemot 23:13). Just as there (in Shemot) [it means] idolatry, 20 so too here [it means] idolatry. Rabbi Yochanan said: A third of the tower was burnt, a third sunk [into the earth], and a third is still standing. Rav said: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness. Rav Yosef said: Bavel and Borsif are bad omens for Torah. What [is the meaning of the name] Borsif? Rabbi Assi said: An empty well.(Talmud sanhedrin 109)

-----------------------

Read carefully Korede Olawoyin " ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.".

The Jews won't ask the same question as you did, since their own Talmud makes mention of people being turned into apes. even the Jews know better then you.

The problem with Korede is, he likes distancing himself from truth. Yesterday Korede made a post asking "is there any evidence of Jews turning into apes?" today he asks, Hadith from both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim say, Jews turned into rats?

Correction, Hadith states

"A group of Israelite's were lost. Nobody knows what they did" Read carefully what you posted "NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY DID" "NOBODY" thus, how do you expect to have historical evidence when "NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY DID" this would also include historians whom korede is seeking. however the Temple curtain was always in the sight of Jewish rabbis, why then did they refrain from writing the curtain tore in half if hundreds of Jews would be inside worshipping?

In fact, korede maybe you can tell us what happened to the 12 lost tribe historically? What exactly did they all randomly disappear, what exactly happened to them? can you disprove a group of them did not turn into rats? If you can please show us evidence of each and every tribal men.

If Moses was able to turn his staff into a serpent, it's not impossible for God to turn a group of disobedient Jews into apes and rats. Does not you bible say "with God nothing is impossible?" are you disputing matters of the unseen? According to your bible, God can create children from rocks?

Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. (Matthew 3:9)

Assuming you want historical proof for everything, even though you ignored my post on the temple curtain. Maybe you can tell us how can God create children out of rocks and not able to turn into rats or apes? Is your God that limited?

If Satan was able to turn into a snake according to your bible, why do you find it difficult to believe a group of Israelites were turned into rats or apes? If that’s the case, then you have to prove to us historically Satan was the snake who spoke in Eden? Or is that pure belief which you can't prove?

Once again, korede failed to answer Talmud Sanhedrin 109 ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.".

1) God can create children from rocks, but is unable to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?

2) God allowed Moses's staff to turn into a serpent and crocodile (yes crocodile), yet is unable to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?

3) The Hadith is clear a group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. If nobody knew what they did how are you expecting historical evidence?

4) The Talmud says people who challenged God at the tower of babel were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.". What historical evidence you do have to that?

5) If Satan was able to change into a snake, why is it impossible for God to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?

And finally, Korede must show us what happened to the 12 lot tribe of Israelite's and that not a single one was transformed into ape or rats. Note the Hadith says "a group of Israelite's were lost. Nobody knows what they did"

----------------

The sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn down the middle. (Luke 23:45)

-----------------------

There is no historical evidence that the temple veil tore in half. What's fascinating is, that we have Judaic source to show how thick the veil was, proving this event was another blunder made up by the unknown writers.

Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simon, the High-priest’s substitute, “The thickness of the veil [of the Temple] was a hand-breadth. It was woven of seventy-two cords, each cord consisting of twenty-four strands. Its length was forty cubits, by twenty in width. It was made by eighty-two myriads of damsels, and two such veils were made every year. It took three hundred priests to immerse and cleanse it [if it becomes unclean].” (Jacob ben Solomon, Agadat En Yaakov, pp. 208 )

Note, Gamaliel was supposed to be the teacher of Paul Acts 22:3. He also broad description given on how large the veil was. Now if Christians say this was supernatural, why didn't the Jewish rabbis, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees record such an event? Surely many people must of witnessed the torn curtain, did they all forget to make mention of such an epic event?

--------------

Another made up story

 

How did Jesus’ escape being caught and trialled by the roman authorities, after causing mass disturbance to the temple?

According to the gospel, Jesus not only vandalised the market in the temple by overturning tables and benches. According to John, Jesus made a whip out of cord and drove out the money changers and even animals.

 This would be impossible for Jesus to do without getting arrested and charged. The temple was always heavily guarded by roman soldiers (Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 323) 

 As money from the trading inside the temple was revenue to the roman authorities taken as tax. Also, Pontius Pilate said, he found no basis to charge Jesus? What even after he caused mayhem/disruption inside the temple in front of a crowd?

 Why didn't the Roman soldiers arrest Jesus and put him on trial? After all, causing disorder and vandalising property which belonged to the roman authorities, would be a capital offence, so what happened?

 Are you saying, the romans and Jews forget such a big incident and didn't think it was good enough to bring it up during the trial of Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate?

 

Serious authorship dispute !!!!

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3)

Interestingly, biblical commentators tell us this verse could not have been written by Moses, rather it was written much later.

--------------

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(3) Now the man Moses was very meek . . . —These words have been urged by some as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch generally, or of the Book of Numbers in particular, but whether they may or may not have been inserted by a later writer, this inference is altogether unfounded. It is possible that the writer of Deuteronomy 34:10may have inserted these words in this place

---------------

Matthew Poole's Commentary

This is added as the reason why Moses took no notice of their reproach, but was one that heard it not, and why God did so speedily and severely plead Moses’s cause, because he did not avenge himself.

Quest. 1. Did it become Moses thus to commend himself?

Answ. 1. The holy penmen of Scripture are not to be measured or censured by other profane writers, because they are guided by special instinct in every thing they write; and as they ofttimes publish their own and their near relations’ greatest faults, where it may be useful to the honour of God, and the edification of the church in after-ages; so it is not strange if for the same reasons sometimes they commend themselves, especially when they are forced to it by the insolence and contempt of their adversaries, which was Moses’s case here, in which case St. Paul also commends himself, 2 Corinthians 11:5, &c. 2 Corinthians 12:11,12; which they might the better do, because all their writings and carriage made it evident to all men that they did not this out of vain-glory, and that they were exalted above the affectation of men’s praises, and the dread of men’s reproaches.

--------------

Jamieson-fausset- brown bible commentary

But it is not improbable that, as this verse appears to be a parenthesis, it may have been inserted as a gloss by Ezra or some later prophet. Others, instead of "very meek," suggest "very afflicted," as the proper rendering.

---------------

Pulpit commentary

The verse bears a difficulty on its very face, because it speaks of Moses in terms which could hardly have been used by Moses of himself.

And those are Christian biblical commentators not Muslims, doesn't this crumble the authenticity of the bible? One doesn't even know who wrote this section it's gets worse below we shall use the same passage but use another statement and see how it contradicts :

Bible says Moses was a very calm and humble man?

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3)

---------------------

Yet this humble and calm man committed horrific atrocities by the command of Yahweh.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every little girl who has never slept with a man. ( Number 31:17-18)

--------------------

The question is, was Jesus aware of the violence and terror caused by Moses which he did by command of Yahweh? Or did he take Moses for being a humble and calm man? And if He knew his acts of terror did he condemn those actions or not, if not why?

How can taking little infant girls be equal to being a humble calm then anyone on earth?

The Way Truth and Life .....

The Way Truth and Life yes Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is Mentioned with such Qualities :

He is on the straight path the Right Way

And indeed, (O Muhammad), you guide to a straight path. (Ash-Shura 42:52)

Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." ( surah 7:58)

Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not. (Surah 45:18)

( also quote Surah 36:3-4)

-------------------------

He is Sadiq (Truthful) 

And when the believers saw the clans, they said: This is what Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger promised us, and Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger are true, and it only added to their faith and submission (to Allah). (33:22)

He brought the truth

And say: The truth has come and the falsehood has vanished away. Undoubtedly, the falsehood is ever bound to vanish. (17:81)

And he who has come with the truth and he who accepts it as the truth, such are those that guard (against evil). (39:33)

How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and had witnessed that the Messenger is true and clear signs had come to them? And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. [Surah 3:86]

“The Prophet (ﷺ) , he said, "Don't you trust me though I am the truth worthy man of the One in the Heavens, and I receive the news of Heaven (i.e. Divine Inspiration) both in the morning and in the evening?” [Sahih Bukhari 4351, Sahih Muslim 1064b]


---------------------------

He calls you to that which gives you life

O you who believe! Answer (the call of) Allah and the (Prophetic) Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life, and know that Allah comes between the man and his own heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. (8:24)



---------------------------

John 14:6 has been cancelled, nullified, invalidated, voided, overridden, overthrown, overturned, revoked, scrapped, abolished, vacated, withdrawn, disannulled, countermanded by Surah 4:13

These are the limits set by Allah. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens beneath which rivers flow, where he will live forever. That is a great success. (Surah 4:13)

God has promised those who believe and work righteousness: they will have forgiveness and a great reward.(Surah 5:9)

The Words of Allah Swt overrides the sayings of any man or jinn. Thus, John 14:6 holds no authority. Jesus of the bible is not the only way to God. Christians must Submit

30. Surely, those who say: “Our Lord is God,” and then go straight, the angels will descend upon them: “Do not fear, and do not grieve, but rejoice in the news of the Garden which you were promised. (Surah 41:30)

 Those who believe, and do good deeds, and pray regularly, and give charity—they will have their reward with their Lord; they will have no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Surah 2:177)

 

Which Torah is correct?

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

(Deuteronomy 4:2)

Which Torah is right?? Focus on verse 4 additional commandment are found in the Samaritan Torah whereas form the Masoretic Torah it's missing ?.. according to deuteronomy that's a direct violation to Yahweh but the question is which version is correct?

-----------------

instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. (Leviticus 17:4)

(MASORETIC TORAH)

---------------------------------------------

And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, "TO OFFER BURNT OFFERING OR PEACE OFFERING TO THE LORD GOD THE DELIGHTFUL FRAGRANCE AND HE IS SLAYING IT OUTSIDE OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF APPOINTMENT" and not he brought it to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

(Leviticus 17:4)

(SAMARITAN TORAH)

The additional sayings are in capital letters to show you the difference between the two versions... Again which is inspired ??

-------------------------

Which Torah is correct?

And they rose early in the morning and went up to the heights of the hill country, saying, “Here we are. We will go up to the place that the Lord has promised, for we have sinned.” (Numbers 14:40 Masoretic Torah)

-------------------

And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we [be here], and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. "And the LORD God saying to Moses: speak to them that not you shall ascend and not you shall battle, as there is no me within you and you will be defeated before faces of your enemies."

(Numbers 14:40 Samaritan Torah)


-----------------------------------------

Which Torah is correct?

It's funny when Christians tell us the Torah they read is 100%  prestige and not a single word has been added or deleted. if this is really the case, then maybe they can tell us which Torah is correct?

----------------

Place the table outside the curtain on the north side of the tabernacle and put the lampstand opposite it on the south side (Exodus 26:35 Masoretic Torah)

Extended version

And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side. And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: [of] shittim wood shalt thou make it. A cubit [shall be] the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; foursquare shall it be: and two cubits [shall be] the height thereof: the horns thereof [shall be] of the same. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, the top thereof, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns thereof; and thou shalt make unto it a crown of gold round about. And two golden rings shalt thou make to it under the crown of it, by the two corners thereof, upon the two sides of it shalt thou make [it]; and they shall be for places for the staves to bear it withal. And thou shalt make the staves [of] shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put it before the veil that [is] by the ark of the testimony, where I shall appoint my name. And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it.And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it [is] most holy unto the LORD. (Exodus 26:35 Samaritan Torah)

So seductive

The disciples found it a problem when Jesus was talking to a samaritan woman, yet they never objected his feet being kissed and perfumed by a whore called Mary?(possibly Magdalene)

Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?"

(John 4:27)

        ------------------------- Compare to-------------------------

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

(John 12:3)

As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

(Luke 7:38)

Now here's the awkward part if a man gets his feet perfumed and wiped by the hair of a woman how do you think he will feel. Wouldn't he get sexual urges after that, her soft hands holding his feet whilst wiping her eyes on his feet so the tears touch it, a very seductive moment. What kinds of thought do you think would go through the man?  Same goes for the woman what was she thinking when she was touching his feet and rubbing her face and hair ?

Was Moses the author of the Torah?

Do you believe Moses wrote the Torah that u currently posses ? 

Below I shall show you how Moses was not the supposed Author of the Torah that jews and Christians claim to have with them? I will only produce two points and shatter there entire false claim!

---------------

(Point one) 

Was Moses humble, or Evil, How did Moses describe Himself?

Now this man Moses was exceedingly humble (Meek), more so than any person on the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3)

The meekest man on the face of the earth would never say that he was meek. Moreover, the meek man does not appear to be very meek in the judgments that he gives in the same book of the Bible:

"And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves." Num.31: 14-18

How does the Most humblest man who ever lived on the face of the earth according to Numbers 12:3 command such an atrocity on people? Killing everyone even animals and keeping little girls for themselves?

------------------

(Second point)

How did Moses get water out of the rock, Moses contradicts himself???????

(By smiting it.)

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. Exodus 17:5

-------------------------

(By talking to it.)

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water. Numbers 20:7-8

Both can't be correct especially when the supposed Author was the one commanded to do so? How could he have given different contradictory statements? How is that even reliable..... 

Lying, Stealing and Cheating in Jewish Talmud

The Jewish Talmud makes several provisions for Jews to lie to, steal from, and cheat Gentiles.  As usual, the only rule is that the Jew must not get caught (“profane the name” of Jews and/or their god). According to the Talmud Jews must return the lost items of other Jews, but they may keep the lost items they find of “heathens”, unless they think the non-Jew will find out about the theft. In a commercial transaction, if a Gentile makes a mistake in a Jew’s favor (for example, if the Gentile undercharges the Jew), the money does not have to be returned. Some commentators say that a Gentile may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction by disguising the low quality of goods.  There are even provisions for directly stealing from Gentiles, the perverse thinking behind this is that a Jew would give the objects for free while the Gentile would ask for payment, so it is ok to steal it from the Gentile.

JEWS MAY KEEP OBJECTS LOST BY GENTILES, BUT NOT THOSE OF JEWS
UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD) 

. His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother’s: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. — Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession. It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO PROFIT FROM THE MISTAKE OF A GENTILE
Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: ‘See that I am relying upon you.’ - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HIDE THE LOW QUALITY OF PRODUCTS FROM GENTILES

Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

DIRECT THEFT FROM GENTILES (BECAUSE A JEW WOULD GIVE IT FOR FREE)

R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: ‘Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me,27  but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.’ The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: ‘If of a heathen would they be permitted?’ — He replied: ‘A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

Footnote 27: Especially since the branches were outside the vineyard and thus probably overhanging a public road; cf. B.B. II, 14.

LIE TO NON-JEWS TO WIN LEGAL BATTLES UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD)

‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.  This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!  - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113a

JEWS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO GENTILES (THE EXCUSE OF “RECIPROCITY” IS GIVEN)

MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OWNER’S CATTLE GORING AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE, OR CONSECRATED CATTLE GORING A PRIVATE OX, THERE IS NO LIABILITY, FOR IT IS STATED: THE OX OF HIS NEIGHBOUR, NOT [THAT IS TO SAY] AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE. WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY,[12] WHEREAS WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE GORES AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE, WHETHER WHILE TAM OR MU’AD, THE COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE IN FULL. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud Baba Kamma 37b

FOOTNOTE 12: As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liability for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognised nor respected, cf. J. T. a.l. and Maim. Yad, Niz. Mam. VIII, 5. [In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was, as Guttmann. M. (HUCA. III 1 ff.) has shown, on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognised, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen.]