Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Nevertheless, it is important, if people make (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), god for wrong understanding of the event, please, right?

Sure it is Important. Whatever god has revealed to us about the previous prophets in the Quran is important. But those are lessons and information we can learn of. Obviously we have to believe in the prophets that was send to us.
The main message all prophets came with was the same message, the worship of god.

 

[Dawnofhope]

N

No. That isn't completely true.

The historical Jesus is far to vague to make such conclusions, but its good you said it was a personal belief however, but certainly not any historical well grounded fact upon which any such belief is based.

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]"

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]"

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Edited by, "Jeffro77"
I suggest something mor academic than Wiki.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]"

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Edited by, "Jeffro77"
I suggest something more academic than Wiki.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Edited by, "Jeffro77"
I suggest something mor academic than Wiki.

Wikipedia is as academic as most other encyclopedias. It is well referenced and respected. If you had taken one minute out of your time you could have looked up the following references:

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256–257
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200
4. ^ Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (2005) ISBN 0664225284 pp. 1–6
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pp. 168–173

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wikipedia is as academic as most other encyclopedias.It is well referenced and well regarded.

If you had taken one minute out of your time you could have looked up the following references:

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256–257
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200
4. ^ Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (2005) ISBN 0664225284 pp. 1–6
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pp. 168–173

My definition of scholar dosent include clergy and religious.

I'd suggest reading those sources first before using it to legitimize the wiki page.

I prefer actual university sources that are not religious institutions or those with religious associations to a denomination or church.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My definition of scholar dosent include clergy and religious.

I'd suggest reading those sources first before using it to legitimize the wiki page.

I prefer actual university sources that are not religious institutions or those with religious associations to a denomination or church.

The first two sources are atheists, including Bart Ehrman, one of the most well-known and respected New Testament scholars today. They are academics, neither clergy nor religious.

 

[paarsurrey]

Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus

Twilight Hue said:
My definition of scholar dosent include clergy and religious.

I'd suggest reading those sources first before using it to legitimize the wiki page.

I prefer actual university sources that are not religious institutions or those with religious associations to a denomination or church.

The first two sources are atheists, including Bart Ehrman, one of the most well-known and respected New Testament scholars today. They are academics, neither clergy nor religious.

I agree with one here, please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus

Twilight Hue said:
My definition of scholar dosent include clergy and religious.

I'd suggest reading those sources first before using it to legitimize the wiki page.

I prefer actual university sources that are not religious institutions or those with religious associations to a denomination or church.

The first two sources are atheists, including Bart Ehrman, one of the most well-known and respected New Testament scholars today. They are academics, neither clergy nor religious.

I agree with one here, please.
It fulfills our @Twilight Hue conceptual require; doesn't it, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus​

2. (Jesus)Yeshua- pegged the biggest of his signs, with "Sign of Jonah":
and Jonah as per the Book of Jonah:

• entered the belly of the fish alive, (Right, please?)
• Jonah remained in the belly of the fish (for 3 days and three nights)* alive, never dying even for a moment during all these days. (Right, please?)
• Jonah came out of the belly of the fish alive (Right, please)
• Jonah came out from the belly of the fish as the same human being, not becoming a God or a Son of God (Right, please?)
• Jonah went to his (Israelite) people , and the Israelites accepted him as a Prophet/Messenger of G-d, not as God or Son of God.(Right, please).

As per** the Saul-ine aka Pauline NT Bible**, nothing of that happened, right, please?
Isn't it an accusation, as one understands, of the Paulines on (Jesus)Yeshua if not a "slur" on (Jesus), right, please??

Regards
______________________
*"

1And the Lord appointed a huge fish to swallow up Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.

"

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16184/jewish/Chapter-2.htm

**This makes NT Bible, an unreliable/doctored source, right?

 

[Kenny]

1. First, Jesus never died on the Cross even then Pauline Christian say that Jesus died, right?

Regards

Wrong… of course.

 

[Left Coast]

Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus​

2. (Jesus)Yeshua- pegged the biggest of his signs, with "Sign of Jonah":
and Jonah as per the Book of Jonah:

• entered the belly of the fish alive, (Right, please?)
• Jonah remained in the belly of the fish (for 3 days and three nights)* alive, never dying even for a moment during all these days. (Right, please?)
• Jonah came out of the belly of the fish alive (Right, please)
• Jonah came out from the belly of the fish as the same human being, not becoming a God or a Son of God (Right, please?)
• Jonah went to his (Israelite) people , and the Israelites accepted him as a Prophet/Messenger of G-d, not as God or Son of God.(Right, please).

As per the Saul-ine aka Pauline NT Bible, nothing of that happened, right, please?
Isn't it an accusation, as one understands, of the Paulines on (Jesus)Yeshua if not or a "slur" on (Jesus), right, please??

Regards
______________________
*"

1And the Lord appointed a huge fish to swallow up Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.

"

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16184/jewish/Chapter-2.htm

Sorry, help me understand: so you trust the authors of the Gospels to accurately tell you what Jesus said, but not in the very same texts where they say how he died?

 

[paarsurrey]

2. (Jesus)Yeshua- pegged the biggest of his signs, with "Sign of Jonah".

I have since revised my post #50 , right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

1. First, Jesus never died on the Cross

Jesus was crucified , to be more specific, he was put on the Cross/Pole
but not till death, please, right?

Regards

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Re Islam

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion, the following is a journal article on the topic. Obviously, the answer to a question like this depends a lot on the methodological framework you apply to the question. Also if you accept the Islamic position that it was only a likeness of him that was crucified, all of the eyewitnesses would still see 'Jesus' being crucified.

Here's one view though:

The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive?

According to most classical Muslim commentators the Quran teaches that Jesus did not die. On the day of the crucifixion another person – whether his disciple or his betrayer – was miraculously transformed and assumed the appearance of Jesus. He was taken away, crucified, and killed, while Jesus was assumed body and soul into heaven. Most critical scholars accept that this is indeed the Quran’s teaching, even if the Quran states explicitly only that the Jews did not kill Jesus. In the present paper I con- tend that the Quran rather accepts that Jesus died, and indeed alludes to his role as a witness against his murderers in the apocalypse. The paper begins with an analysis of the Quran’s references to the death of Jesus, continues with a description of classical Muslim exegesis of those references, and concludes with a presentation of the Quran’s conversation with Jewish and Christian tradition on the matter of Jesus’ death.

https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_files/jesus dead or alive.pdf


Reynolds' concludes with his opinion that:


If tafsīr indeed provides an accurate explanation of the Quran’s original, intended meaning, then nowhere should the explanation be clearer than in the case of the Crucifixion. If the Prophet Muḣammad announced to his companions that Jesus never died, but rather someone who was made miraculously to look like him died in his place, i.e. if he gave a historical account of the crucifixion which fundamentally contra- dicts that which Jews and Christians had been reporting for hundreds of years, then certainly such a revolutionary account – if any – would be well remembered and well preserved. But, quite to the contrary, the reports of the mufassirūn are inconsistent and often contradictory. They have all of the tell-tale signs of speculative exegesis.

This strikes me as reason enough for critical scholars to read this quranic passage in light of earlier (i.e. Jewish and Christian) and not later (i.e. Islamic exegesis) literature. When the Quran is read in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that the passage on the crucifixion is fully in line with Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric. A major theme of this rhetoric, of course, is the portrayal of the Jews as prophet-killers. Accordingly the Quran, in sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 155, accuses the Jews of “murdering the prophets”. When the Quran then alludes to the crucifixion just two verses later, it means to give the cardinal example of just such a murder.

Hi there

So I wanted to say something about the Islamic perspective regarding what you have said.

1. The theorie that someone else replaced Jesus on the cross. We take that as a possibility and take the position that Allah knows best since he has not mention the details.
2. We don’t see Jesus not dying as a contradiction as what Jews and Christian’s has been reporting. The main reason why we think that is because Allah told us in the Quran that he made them appear that Jesus was crusified. So people believing he died fits our narrative.
3. The verse about Jews killing prophets mention in the Quran 4-155.
Firstly it doesn’t necessarily attribute to Jesus just because its mention 2 verses before when talking about Jesus
Secondly Allah mentioned this before in the second chapter:

Quran 2-61

And ˹remember˺ when you said, “O Moses! We cannot endure the same meal ˹every day˺. So ˹just˺ call upon your Lord on our behalf, He will bring forth for us some of what the earth produces of herbs, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions.” Moses scolded ˹them˺, “Do you exchange what is better for what is worse? ˹You can˺ go down to any village and you will find what you have asked for.” They were stricken with disgrace and misery, and they invited the displeasure of Allah for rejecting Allah’s signs and unjustly killing the prophets. This is ˹a fair reward˺ for their disobedience and violations.

Thirdly so even tho Allah didn’t mention specifically which prophets were killed by the Jews. We know that the Bible does mention that prophets were killed by the Jews for example Isiah.

 

[paarsurrey]

Accusations of Pauline Christianity people on Jesus
1. First, Jesus never died on the Cross, even then , Pauline Christianity say that Jesus died, this is an accusation on the Israelite Messiah.

Wrong, it is as per Bible. Jesus died on the cross.
You can not kill Christ.

Then why does the Pauline-Christianity's Bible, never written by (Jesus)/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah (wrongly called a Christ) himself and or dictated by him and or written by a person expressly/unambiguously authorised by Yeshua; purports to kill him on the Cross, please, right??

Friend @Augustus
" Islamic position "

Here is the Islamic position:
30 Verses of the Holy Quran which prove the Natural Death of Jesus Christ (as)
Proof: This means that Jesus Christ(as) did not suffer an accursed death by dying on the cross.

Look, I'm no fan of Christianity, Pauline version or otherwise. But yeah, Jesus died.

Yes, (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah did die as he was not "god" or "son of god" or "god in the flesh" as the Paulines wrongly project him, yet he did not die on the Cross, rather he died later, a natural death.
Jesus was crucified , to be more specific, he was put on the Cross/Pole
but not till death, please.

Regards