tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Assalamualaikum.
This is a continuation of Death on the Cross (or lack thereof) - Religious Education Forum
Christ was crucified on Friday. Since the Jewish Holy Day of Sabbath (Saturday) was approaching it was normal custom to take down the body from the cross before the evening. This was Jewish custom and they believed in dire consequences if it was not followed. So, Jews knew that Jesus' body would have to be taken down. In order to make up for the lack of time since six hours on the cross was not enough the legs of the crucified were broken. For death on the cross occurs by suffocation due to the pressure on the lungs. This process may be slowed down by a victim who can use his legs to lend some support to the rest of the body. If the legs are broken, however, then this support ceases and this, in turn, quickens death on the cross. So, on Jesus' both sides there were convicts whose legs were cut off as they were deemed alive. However, Jesus' bones were not broken. The pretense being that as he was already dead there was no need. But had it not been established by the gushing of blood and water that the man had not died? In fact, even if he had stopped breathing it is an established medical fact (and the gushing of blood and water showed) that blood circulation could still continue for minutes. Why, then, were Jesus' legs not cut off. Furthermore, the oncoming of a violent storm had already assured at least one centurion that Jesus truly was the son of God. The point being that Jesus' legs not being broken is more evidence for the theory that he had not died.
In fact, the lack of breaking of the bones fulfilled a prophecy in the Bible. Do Chrisitians not bother reading the whole prophecy? Or do they not see that the prophecy speaks not of death and resurrection but clearly of rescue!
Was the rescue of the one whose bones will not be broken not prophesized (Psalm 22:16-22):
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [a] my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
Do these cries not sound like those of one who will be saved? Are these verses not prophecy of rescue from impending death like so many Prophets before Jesus? Does the prophecy speak of resurrection from dead or survival under severe circumstances? Take this prophecy and apply it to Jesus. How can any sane person apply it to resurrection.
The prophecy clearly talks about dogs who had surrounded Jesus. In verse 16 it talks about the dogs. And then the person in the prophecy pleads to God that he is rescued from the dogs. Would a Christian say the dogs who crucified Jesus were the same ones who tortured him while death cursed him? Did they perform some sort of immediate transportation Jutsu to hell? For the dogs had surrounded Jesus on the cross as they tore up his cloths. And upon his death, lo! the dogs are now in hell torturing Jesus. And while in that cursed state Jesus was begging to be rescued. Is this the religion Christians pride upon? Why is this man praying for rescue from the dogs? Why is he begging to be saved? If Jesus' death was by his design then what or whom does this prophecy refer to? Is it not also written elsewhere in Psalm 34:19-20 that
19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
Why do Christians (especially their priests) skip over these obvious references. They all claim that these prophecies referred to Jesus. Yet they completely ignore the obvious relation that the one being talked about will be saved and rescued and delivered from death as it stared him in the face. They speak not at all of resurrection. And on this point of mine Christians might take out (as is their habit) a collection of verses that supposedly talk about Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Fine then that only creates a contradiction in the Bible. Can those verses be reconciled with these where "rescue" and "delivers" have been used?
If I make two statements that apparently contradict each other then I am either a liar or some sort of reconciliation between the two statements might have to be sought. So, in the same way Christians must reconcile the apparent contradiction whereby on one hand Jesus prophecy's his death and on the other hand two prophecies as shown above state that he will not die. Furthermore, evidence from the events of crucifixion strongly support Jesus' survival and any evidence to the contrary can not stand. Then, the obvious conclusion one would have to make is that Jesus was a liar (God forbid). Or that when he said he was going to die he meant something else. Is that a possibility?
Because if there is no possibility then the Christians would have to admit contradictions in the Bible. There are prophecies that speak of survival. There are also prophecies that apparently refer to his death and subsequent resurrection. But in light of the actual events is it not clear which prophecy came to pass and which requires reconciliation? It has been explained repeatedly now that in no way was six hours sufficient to ensure death by crucifixion. Especially since the legs of Jesus were not broken. The gushing forth of blood and water further strengthens the survival hypothesis. So is the case with the use of medicine. In fact the proof from the books of medicine spread all over the world is so great that no honest person can reject it. But that is for later. It is not the way of the righteous to go bolder in unreasonable statements. For that is a deception of Christianity. Is it fair to insist on unreasonable extraordinary conclusions when very reasonable ones exist?
This is a continuation of Death on the Cross (or lack thereof) - Religious Education Forum
Christ was crucified on Friday. Since the Jewish Holy Day of Sabbath (Saturday) was approaching it was normal custom to take down the body from the cross before the evening. This was Jewish custom and they believed in dire consequences if it was not followed. So, Jews knew that Jesus' body would have to be taken down. In order to make up for the lack of time since six hours on the cross was not enough the legs of the crucified were broken. For death on the cross occurs by suffocation due to the pressure on the lungs. This process may be slowed down by a victim who can use his legs to lend some support to the rest of the body. If the legs are broken, however, then this support ceases and this, in turn, quickens death on the cross. So, on Jesus' both sides there were convicts whose legs were cut off as they were deemed alive. However, Jesus' bones were not broken. The pretense being that as he was already dead there was no need. But had it not been established by the gushing of blood and water that the man had not died? In fact, even if he had stopped breathing it is an established medical fact (and the gushing of blood and water showed) that blood circulation could still continue for minutes. Why, then, were Jesus' legs not cut off. Furthermore, the oncoming of a violent storm had already assured at least one centurion that Jesus truly was the son of God. The point being that Jesus' legs not being broken is more evidence for the theory that he had not died.
In fact, the lack of breaking of the bones fulfilled a prophecy in the Bible. Do Chrisitians not bother reading the whole prophecy? Or do they not see that the prophecy speaks not of death and resurrection but clearly of rescue!
Was the rescue of the one whose bones will not be broken not prophesized (Psalm 22:16-22):
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [a] my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
Do these cries not sound like those of one who will be saved? Are these verses not prophecy of rescue from impending death like so many Prophets before Jesus? Does the prophecy speak of resurrection from dead or survival under severe circumstances? Take this prophecy and apply it to Jesus. How can any sane person apply it to resurrection.
The prophecy clearly talks about dogs who had surrounded Jesus. In verse 16 it talks about the dogs. And then the person in the prophecy pleads to God that he is rescued from the dogs. Would a Christian say the dogs who crucified Jesus were the same ones who tortured him while death cursed him? Did they perform some sort of immediate transportation Jutsu to hell? For the dogs had surrounded Jesus on the cross as they tore up his cloths. And upon his death, lo! the dogs are now in hell torturing Jesus. And while in that cursed state Jesus was begging to be rescued. Is this the religion Christians pride upon? Why is this man praying for rescue from the dogs? Why is he begging to be saved? If Jesus' death was by his design then what or whom does this prophecy refer to? Is it not also written elsewhere in Psalm 34:19-20 that
19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
Why do Christians (especially their priests) skip over these obvious references. They all claim that these prophecies referred to Jesus. Yet they completely ignore the obvious relation that the one being talked about will be saved and rescued and delivered from death as it stared him in the face. They speak not at all of resurrection. And on this point of mine Christians might take out (as is their habit) a collection of verses that supposedly talk about Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Fine then that only creates a contradiction in the Bible. Can those verses be reconciled with these where "rescue" and "delivers" have been used?
If I make two statements that apparently contradict each other then I am either a liar or some sort of reconciliation between the two statements might have to be sought. So, in the same way Christians must reconcile the apparent contradiction whereby on one hand Jesus prophecy's his death and on the other hand two prophecies as shown above state that he will not die. Furthermore, evidence from the events of crucifixion strongly support Jesus' survival and any evidence to the contrary can not stand. Then, the obvious conclusion one would have to make is that Jesus was a liar (God forbid). Or that when he said he was going to die he meant something else. Is that a possibility?
Because if there is no possibility then the Christians would have to admit contradictions in the Bible. There are prophecies that speak of survival. There are also prophecies that apparently refer to his death and subsequent resurrection. But in light of the actual events is it not clear which prophecy came to pass and which requires reconciliation? It has been explained repeatedly now that in no way was six hours sufficient to ensure death by crucifixion. Especially since the legs of Jesus were not broken. The gushing forth of blood and water further strengthens the survival hypothesis. So is the case with the use of medicine. In fact the proof from the books of medicine spread all over the world is so great that no honest person can reject it. But that is for later. It is not the way of the righteous to go bolder in unreasonable statements. For that is a deception of Christianity. Is it fair to insist on unreasonable extraordinary conclusions when very reasonable ones exist?
