The Problem of the Thief and the Crucifixion

Introduction

In perhaps what is one of the most perplexing passages of the New Testament, we find a story during the alleged crucifixion of Jesus the Christ that challenges the very core of commonly held Christian beliefs about Christ and salvation. We read from Luke 23:39-43 (NIV) the following:

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The Problem

If we were to ask a confessional Christian today (one that knows of and adheres to the doctrinal confessions of the faith) what one needed to believe in for salvation, we would perhaps have a very long list. It would likely include belief that Jesus died for the sins of all, that Jesus was God, that Jesus was both man and God (belief in the hypostatic union), belief that the New Testament is the word of God, belief in the Godhead, in the Personhood of each member of the Godhead who were all co-equal and co-substantial to each other.

Yet the 5 verses from the Gospel eventually attributed to Luke present a severe theological problem that strikes at the very core of Christian theology. The question before us is, what did the thief say, believe and do to be granted salvation? When we examine the verses we can identify only two things:

  1. That Jesus was an innocent man.
  2. That Jesus was a King (or would become one at some point).

All the thief had to do to be granted salvation was to accept that Jesus was innocent and thus did not deserve to be crucified, and that Jesus would survive in some form such that he would become a king or have a kingdom. By this standard, all Muslims will be granted entry into the kingdom of God. The thief did not have to believe in the New Testament, did not have to accept the Old Testament, did not have to express belief in the Trinity, did not have to believe in the Godhead, did not have to believe in the two natures of Christ, did not have to even accept Jesus as the Messiah! He did not have to believe Jesus was the incarnate word of God, he did not have to believe that Jesus was the 2nd person in the Godhead…in other words, the thief did not have to believe in anything that Christians today hold to be true.

There is perhaps an even greater issue here. The thief claims that Jesus was innocent and thus did not deserve to be punished. See, Christians necessarily believe that while Jesus was innocent, he deserved to suffer and be punished, because he came to suffer for our sins as an act of grace:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16 (NIV).

“And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” – Luke 9:22 (NIV).

According to the above passages, Christ must suffer and must be killed. However, the thief on the cross, seemingly disagrees with these teachings. The thief explicitly says that not only is Jesus innocent, but that he did not deserve to die. In other words, the thief is expressing an Islamic position that Muslims would agree with. Jesus did not deserve to die, he did not deserve to suffer and he was an innocent man. In other words, Jesus rewards a thief and claims the thief would be in the Kingdom of God with him because he denied the core tenets of Christianity while affirming core beliefs of Islam.

The thief in no uncertain words explains that his crucifixion on the cross is justified, but Jesus’s isn’t, however, confessional Christians would argue that in order for sin to be paid, it had to be justified through the death of Jesus the Christ. This presents a problem for Christianity. Jesus rewards a man and accepts him into the Kingdom of God for expressively, clearly and absolutely, rejecting core Christian beliefs about salvation!

Comments by Scholars

These 5 verses deliver a devastating blow to the consistency of the doctrine of salvation in Christianity. These verses essentially approve of Islamic beliefs and indicate that Muslims according to Jesus…would be in the Kingdom of God, since we believe that he was innocent and that the alleged crucifixion was not justified in any way. These are things a Christian today cannot deny, these are things a Christian today has to believe in, yet a thief with Islamic beliefs only accepted two tenets, both of which agree with core Islamic beliefs, and was rewarded and praised by Jesus! The scholars have had difficulty in understanding these passages. It must first be noted that only one Gospel records this incident and this is the Gospel of Luke:

“Luke’s account is noticeably independent of the other three. The three sayings of Christ’s, round which his narrative is grouped, are preserved by him alone. We shall best grasp the dominant impression which the Evangelist unconsciously had himself received, and sought to convey, by gathering the whole round these three words from the Cross.” – MacLaren’s Expositions.

The other three Gospels are noticeably silent on the thieves, except for the case of demonizing them:

“In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” – Matthew 27:44 (NIV).

“Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” – Mark 15:32 (NIV).

The final Gospel, later attributed to John (which John, we don’t know), does not mention any of the words of the thieves, it does not even identify them as thieves or rebels. Instead, this is all the Gospel as to say:

“The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.” – John 19:32 (NIV).

Resolving the Problem

Some Christian commentators (exegetes) have attempted to navigate around this narrative disaster by implying that the thief/ rebel had other beliefs, that he believed Jesus was a God or that Jesus was meant to die for his sins and thus was saved because of this. The problem with such an argument is that the only Gospel to mention this incident does not indicate any of these things. The Gospel does not indicate that the thief/ rebel believed in anything other than what was recorded. In other words, this is a poor attempt at reading between the lines and should therefore be rejected. If scripture is sufficient for understanding salvation, then the plain reading of these 5 passages should be accepted without having a need to insert anything into scripture, to force it to say something it does not.

Conclusion

These five passages are a disaster for any Christian who takes their faith seriously. Every core tenet that one needs to believe in to be considered a confessional Christian is necessarily discarded by the thief and approved of by Jesus himself. In fact, the very beliefs that Jesus was an innocent man and did not deserve to die, that his death is unjustifiable is an Islamic belief. Thus, there are two arguments to be claimed here:

  1. According to Jesus, all one has to do to be granted entry into the Kingdom of God is to accept that Jesus is innocent and that his death was unjustified (which affirms Islam’s beliefs about Jesus). Therefore the beliefs of most Christians have been deemed unnecessary and useless by Jesus himself.
  2.  That belief in Jesus dying for the sins of the world is unjustified and that Jesus affirms this, thereby establishing that him dying does not acquit us of our sins (essentially refuting core Christian beliefs about the purpose behind Jesus’s death in the first place).

May God guide our Christian brothers and sisters to the truth of Jesus the Christ, which is to the Oneness of God.

and Allah knows best.

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, Daw'ah, Islam

Tags: , , , , , , ,

76 replies

    • I would say, “Excellent” points!!!! Truly devastating, wow!! Thanks to
      Ijaz for bringing this interesting rarely discussed problem to our attention.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jazakallaahu Khayran brothers, but there’s more to come, this is just the start.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hahaaa not Very good points actually, written from a ,fault finder’s point of view. Eyes were deliberately closed to the truth.

      Wrong analysis employed deliberately

      Firstly Christians dont believe Jesus deserves to die, otherwise why is his sacrifice worthy of forgiveness of sins? It is instead because he was unjustly murdered, a righteous not deserving to die but killed and thru his death sinners deserving to die get spared.

      The sinner on the cross did the following to get tje grace of Jesus Christ.:

      1. He believed Jesus was the Christ, so he asked to be remembered in Christ’s Kingdom. Muslims dont believe The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Jesus, but This thief does. Calling Heaven Jesus’ Kingdom means he understood The Messiah was supposed to be God with us. So this thief actually acknowledged Jesus’ deity in agreeing paradise was Jesus’ Kingdom.
      2. He recognised he was a sinner and confessed it
      3. He asked Jesus to help him enter the Kingdom of heaven.
      4. Right on the cross he tried to help another sinner repent from his sins
      5. He could only do these things because he knew and heard about the teachings of Jesus and agreed that he needed Jesus in order to be saved.
      6. He admitted Jesus was not dying for his own sins so Jesus could include him as one of those he died for, so that they might have eternal life with God.

      A MUSLIM SHOULD NOT TRY TO INTERPRETE BIBLE because any time they do, they only engage in FALLACY OF LOGIC IN THEIR BIBLE INTERPRETATION attempt.

      Like

    • The Christian faith is the MOST ILLOGICAL faith ever created on the face of the earth and you have the audacity to talk about logical fallacy? You wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it smacked you in the face.

      Like

    • Am very sure because Quran promised men in Islam to fu-k p-ssi-s of virgins who dont piss nor shit etc. in Paradise , You are blind to the many illogicalities of Islam. Which admitted Jesus is God indirectly and reject it at the same time,

      Jesus said at the ressurection men shall be like Angels, so nothing like eating or marrying or physical activities like in this physical world, But, Allah promised them to Muslims, Who really is this Allah that lives to contradict God and claiming he is indeed God of Bible, a big false god. He must be.

      Like

    • What else can I expect from a crosstian pervert. Sex will be in paradise because it’s pleasure promised to people who are righteous on earth. Your bible teaches you that there is nothing wrong with sex itself. Noah had 1000 women to choose from but yet I don’t see you pagan bitch complain about that. There will be no certain human limitations (like u say it so elegantly: no piss or poop) in heaven. What’s illogical about that? Your entire pagan belief is a mish mash of pagan garbage. God-man, trinity, etc. Your angels in the bible have sex with women on earth. So much for your ‘not having sex argument’. And don’t bring me that pathetic argument that fatty shamoun brought in the debate with Shabir Ally who complety owned that fatty.
      “They left their natural habitat” LOOOOL!!!
      Pathetic!

      If your pagan comicbook contradicts mine then that’s your problem. Now get lost kid!

      Liked by 1 person

    • ” Your angels in the bible have sex with women on earth. So much for your ‘not having sex argument’. ”

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/06/01/what-was-pauls-christology/#comment-50840

      Liked by 1 person

    • When Satan was copying Bible to write the Quran which lies to muslims, I mean everyone knows Quran is adulterated copy of Bible.

      He copied the incidence of Angels which came down to earth and just because they had ability to take the form of man on earth when they come here on assignment, they chose to try sex and God closed heaven to them, they could not go back inside heaven.

      Now if heaven was closed to them because they abused the ability God gave them to assume the form of man when they come to earth. Should Satan successfully use that story to promise muslims an illegality in Heaven?

      And because they are very dumb people, they believe him, thinking they will take alcohol in Heaven, have sex with virgins, etc. THIS DUMB PEOPLE CAN NOT EBEN SEE THAT THIS IS A LIE, WHICH IS COMING FROM SATAN, TO FOOL THEM into Hell fire

      The fake of everything comes after the Original, After God brought the Bible Satan created the quran to contradict God and mislead Muslims

      Hahaaaaaa these are funny foooools to believe a simple lie like this.

      Like

    • ORB
      By the standard that you apply to the Qur’an your own book stands accused as well. There are many who would say that the NT is a fake, copy, Satan’s book, etc., since it came after the Torah. If you believe that Gods revelation could progress from the Torah, to the Gospel, then based on that alone, there is no reason not to believe it progressed further into the Qur’an.

      You said: “A MUSLIM SHOULD NOT TRY TO INTERPRETE BIBLE because any time they do, they only engage in FALLACY OF LOGIC IN THEIR BIBLE INTERPRETATION attempt.” This is quite an Ironic statement considering the leaps of logic that many Christians take in their own shaky interpretations of the Bible.

      Tell me how do you feel about Jews interpreting the Bible, specifically the NT?

      Like

    • Ibn you guys like comparing tomatoes and pepper, apart from the red colour nothing else is similar to compare them,

      New Testament of Bible confirms the Old Testament is truly the word of God. So it rightly proceeds as a continuation in perfecting of the Old Testament.

      Quran meanwhile contradicts Bible soo much that it cannot be the continuation, It is Just another book written to look similar but contradictory.

      So you cant say The New Testament is like the Old Testament in anyway.

      Like

    • ORB
      The NT confirms the OT?? LOL!!! Wow, now I know you are truly a fundamentalist Christian. Modern Biblical scholarship does not agree with you that the NT confirms the OT, or vice versa. There is so much wrong with your statements that I don’t even know where to begin! Far from perfecting the OT, the NT actually reinterprets the OT and corrupting, altering, and watering down its teachings, which is you went from the One monotheistic God of the OT, to the triune Godhead in NT Christianity. It is the NT (not the Qur’an) that is written to look similar to the OT, but which is highly contradictory. Christians claim that the NT dovetails with the OT, but in reality they are diametrically opposed to each other.

      Talk about tomatoes and Peppers, what a joke!

      If you don’t believe me, then just ask any Jew. Read some books on NT historical criticism, or just look at the body of work of Rabbi Tovia Singer for starters.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. See, Christians necessarily believe that while Jesus was innocent, he deserved to suffer and be punished, because he came to suffer for our sins as an act of grace:

    I don’t think you are using the word “deserved” correctly here.

    Where has any Christian or Christian writer or thinker ever said “Jesus deserved to suffer and be punished ??

    He voluntarily chose to come and suffer and be punished, but He did not deserve it.

    John 10:18
    “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down on My initiative, and I take it up again . . . ”

    He voluntarily came out of love; the love for mankind (all nations – Revelation 5:9; 7:9) planned between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in eternity past. (Psalm 2:1-12; Ephesians 1:3-14)

    Like

    • If you dont understand Bible and so you read it and missinterprete it, We can say well that one is a spiritual revelation, so it is easy for A Carnal man like you to falter.

      Then you copied and pasted dictionary too but still you cant understand it, then what kind of a person are you?
      All you muslims have basic understanding challenge.

      By the synonyms (merit, earn etc.)used to explain the definition further. Are you saying Jesus did something to earn his murder? Are you saying he merited his death?

      Like

  2. deserve

    dɪˈzəːv/

    verb

    do something or have or show qualities worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate).

    “the referee deserves a pat on the back”

    synonyms:merit, earn, warrant, rate, justify, be worthy of, be entitled to, have a right to, have a claim on, be qualified for, be good enough for More

    ———
    ———

    So you’re saying Jesus was not worthy of dying for your sins…?

    Like

    • He did not deserve to be persecuted and killed.

      He was worthy as the perfect sacrifice and atonement because of His intrinsic worth and sinlessness; but not “worthy” in the sense of deserving to be killed by sinful humans, since He was innocent and sinless.

      It was from a human point of view the greatest injustice ever done.

      But from a divine point of view; God the Father took the greatest injustice ever done and turned it for His own glory and made it into an act of justice against sin and mercy and love for sinners.

      Like

    • I’m not on my computer at the moment, but I’ll respond to you when I am.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “But from a divine point of view; God the Father took the greatest injustice ever done and turned it for His own glory and made it into an act of justice against sin and mercy and love for sinners.”

      god the father delivered the son god to divinely prescribed destruction, so god the father fully intended the son god to be destroyed by his own divine wrath because no human was DESIGNED to take the divinely prescribed destruction. this implies only a god killing a god can cool of a god.
      god said he does not want the wicked to die , what he REALLY wants is the innocent to die a brutal death

      this could only mean innocent, in gods view are deserving of DIVINELY prescribed destruction.

      Like

    • “But from a divine point of view; God the Father took the greatest injustice ever done and turned it for His own glory and made it into an act of justice against sin and mercy and love for sinners.”

      so jesus deserved the divinely prescribed execution . it was intended by the father. with your understanding, EVERYONE who was shouting for his crucifixion was carrying out the plan and with your understanding, had christians been there, they would have also CRIED out for his execution because like you said “made it into an act of justice….”
      the romans were doing the will of god and not only that , if they were told by jesus that making jesus into an levitical animal sacrifice would appease the justice of god, then romans SHOULD be nailing jesus with happy face. the justice of god was appeased. they should have celebrated their acts because god was getting appeased.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If you dont understand Bible and so you read it and missinterprete it, We can say well that one is a spiritual revelation, so it is easy for A Carnal man like you to falter.

      Then you copied and pasted dictionary too but still you cant understand it, then what kind of a person are you?
      All you muslims have basic understanding challenge.

      By the synonyms (merit, earn etc.)used to explain the definition further. Are you saying Jesus did something to earn his murder? Are you saying he merited his death?

      Like

    • ORB,
      I think Ijaz was very clear in the original blog post that Jesus did NOT deserve to die. Therefore, Jesus did NOT deserve to die or be punished, and he did NOT merit or earn his murderous death. That’s kinda the whole point isn’t it? Even Ken agrees above with that.

      It seems that YOU are the only one with the basic understanding challenge.

      Like

    • Ibn, did you read the question Ijaz asked? At the end of his message? He said: are we Christians saying Jesus is not worthy of dying for our sins?

      This he said just after posting the dictionary definition. What is the implication in ur estimation? That is why I said u guys your perception on issues is too poor.

      Like

    • I think that the question of whether Jesus was worthy of dying for sins, or if he deserved to die are really tangential issues in relation to the main point of the original blog post.

      And the main point is that the verse in Luke 23:39-43 makes it clear that Jesus accepted the thief into paradise simply because he believed that Jesus was innocent, (Extra Doctrinal Christian baggage not required).

      If Jesus was or is a God who died for our sins, (and if one must believe so to be saved), then Jesus himself (or at least the unknown author of Luke) would have mentioned it…..but he did not. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is not God, and that he did not die to save us from our sins, nor are we required to believe so in order to be saved in to the gardens of paradise.

      Like

    • Ibn you spoke of the main points raised which closed eyes to the details of the salvation of the thief

      I opened his eyes to them but even you are still marking time on the deliberate misrepresentations he did.

      Look at the many issues from that event which all of you are intentionally refusing to see, just because if you admit them you cannot criticize as badly as you want it.

      READ IT AGAIN: Eyes were deliberately closed to the truth.

      Wrong analysis employed deliberately

      Firstly Christians dont believe Jesus deserves to die, otherwise why is his sacrifice worthy of forgiveness of sins? It is instead because he was unjustly murdered, a righteous not deserving to die but killed and thru his death sinners deserving to die get spared.

      The sinner on the cross did the following to get tje grace of Jesus Christ.:

      1. He believed Jesus was the Christ, so he asked to be remembered in Christ’s Kingdom. Muslims dont believe The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Jesus, but This thief does. Calling Heaven Jesus’ Kingdom means he understood The Messiah was supposed to be God with us. So this thief actually acknowledged Jesus’ deity in agreeing paradise was Jesus’ Kingdom.
      2. He recognised he was a sinner and confessed it
      3. He asked Jesus to help him enter the Kingdom of heaven.
      4. Right on the cross he tried to help another sinner repent from his sins
      5. He could only do these things because he knew and heard about the teachings of Jesus and agreed that he needed Jesus in order to be saved.
      6. He admitted Jesus was not dying for his own sins so Jesus could include him as one of those he died for, so that they might have eternal life with God.

      A MUSLIM SHOULD NOT TRY TO INTERPRETE BIBLE because any time they do, they only engage in FALLACY OF LOGIC IN THEIR BIBLE INTERPRETATION attempt.

      Like

  3. Jesus rewards a thief and claims the thief would be in the Kingdom of God with him because he denied the core tenets of Christianity while affirming core beliefs of Islam.

    The thief did not deny anything that is core tenets of Christianity; Christ accepted his repentance at the level of his simple understanding at that time. The New Testament has not been written yet. You are back-loading the revelation that comes later and expecting it to be spelled out in details before the revelation even takes place.

    Jesus was sinless and innocent. The thief recognized that and that He is the Messiah; he trusted Him. Since the thief knew that Jesus was going to enter into His kingdom, there is an implied understanding of His death and resurrection and ascension to heaven (His kingdom) – the thief knew they were both going to die (a denial of Islamic doctrine) and somehow enter into His kingdom. There is no indication that the thief thought that God would mysteriously take Jesus off the cross at this point and make someone else look like Him.

    In fact, given all the suffering that Jesus has already suffered to this point, for you to try and use this an agreeing with Islam backfires, since Jesus has already suffered a lot and is dying.

    The thief seems to know that Jesus is going to die and enter into His kingdom – an implied belief in His death and resurrection and ascension to heaven, even if he could not articulate it.

    Lots of people are saved by simple heart repentance and faith in Christ, without knowing the details of theology, etc. when they are taught later in church and discipleship classes, those who are truly converted don’t fight and rebel against what they later learn, but they agree with them as they learn the rest of the New Testament and theology of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

    Like

    • “The thief did not deny anything that is core tenets of Christianity; Christ accepted his repentance at the level of his simple understanding at that time. The New Testament has not been written yet. You are back-loading the revelation that comes later and expecting it to be spelled out in details before the revelation even takes place.”

      the question is why is luke, who is writing decades later, including such information when according to you, luke thought that a list of beliefs were required before one enters heaven?

      for example look at john, he has john the baptist make a christian declaration about jesus right from the beginning.

      Like

  4. In fact, given all the suffering that Jesus has already suffered to this point, for you to try and use this as agreeing with Islam backfires, since Jesus has already suffered a lot and is dying.

    Just because the other gospels do not have those details, does not mean they are contradicting.

    That is why we have 4 accounts – like 4 eyewitnesses, one on each corner of a car accident at an intersection of a road. Like 4 directions (North, South, East, West) looking at one event from different angles.

    Like

    • “That is why we have 4 accounts – like 4 eyewitnesses, one on each corner of a car accident at an intersection of a road. Like 4 directions (North, South, East, West) looking at one event from different angles.”
      Most scholars of the NT don’t agree with this vapid simplification of the reality of your bible!
      You’re not in your church, Ken.

      “Say, “The truth has come, and falsehood can neither begin [anything] nor repeat [it].” QT

      Like

    • believing scholars do so.

      The west is free and full of unbelieving and liberal and skeptical scholars.

      Like

    • Ken,
      With all honesty left in your heart, do you think (Mark10:18 & Matt 19:17) can be described as ” looking at one event from different angles” ?
      Take into account that these books were written independently in different time & place.

      Christian conservative “scholars” don’t use the correct terms to describe the reality of your bible, and they deceive people by that as Dr. Ehrman has pointed to.

      ==========
      “the west is free”
      I know it’s free from the law of God, and it’s tied with the law of men with christians’ ” blessing”.

      “Beautified for those who disbelieve is the life of this world, and they ridicule those who believe. But those who fear Allah are above them on the Day of Resurrection. And Allah gives provision to whom He wills without account.” QT 2:212

      Like

    • With all honesty left in your heart, do you think (Mark10:18 & Matt 19:17) can be described as ” looking at one event from different angles” ?

      I see no problem with the 2 verses; they say basically the same thing. In fact Jesus problem said both of them in the actual conversation; one can see the reasonableness of this:

      And Jesus said to him,

      “Why are you asking Me about what is good?
      man pauses . . .
      Jesus: “In fact . . .
      “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. There is only One who is good;
      [ If you think I am good; then you need to realize that I am God, for only God is truly good. If you have seen Me you have seen the Father.]

      . . . but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

      and then the man is self decieved thinking he has kept the commandments, etc.
      since his money was his “god”, an idol in his heart; he broke the first and second commandment, and lied about himself and broke the 9th commandment (lying to Jesus about himself).

      later, the disciples ask, “then who can be saved?”

      Jesus:
      “With men, it is impossible.” (You cannot save yourself, you cannot obey the law; you are a hopeless sinner; you are not even able to choose God or the right way without God first drawing you and giving you a new heart. (John 6:44; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Acts 16:14)

      “But not with God, all things are possible with God” = God’s power is able to overcome your sin, change you, and bring you to Himself and save you; by grace are you saved. Ephesians 2:1-9

      Mark 10:23-27
      23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus *answered again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

      Like

    • “[ If you think I am good; then you need to realize that I am God, for only God is truly good ]”
      So that what your heart sees from the text? Do you really think that Jewish guy got what you understand, Ken?

      “You cannot save yourself, you cannot obey the law; you are a hopeless sinner”
      Where did Jesus say that, Ken? Are you happy by putting words in mouth of Jesus? Allah(sw) will judge you in the Day of Rresseruction.
      If your books gave the same accounts, you wouldn’t need to jump from book to book. Even your jumping needed your lies to establish your pauline religion while the passages themselves don’t say what you say.
      Fear Allah!

      Like

  5. Also, to use those 5 verses the way you are attempted to use them, backfires against Islam, since the same document goes on to describe Jesus’ death and burial and then in chapter 24, His resurrection from the dead and bodily appearances to His disciples.

    The Death of Jesus
    44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

    The Burial of Jesus
    50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

    55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

    chapter 24

    Empty Tomb

    Resurrection

    Appearances to the women

    Appearance to the 2 disciples on the Emmaus Road

    Appearance to the 11 disciples in the upper room

    36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.
    38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
    39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
    40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

    Luke 24:36-40

    Like

    • QUOTE:

      Empty Tomb

      Resurrection

      Appearances to the women

      Appearance to the 2 disciples on the Emmaus Road

      Appearance to the 11 disciples in the upper room

      end quote

      it appears that apostle paul found none of these convincing.

      Like

    • does not make sense. the apostle Paul believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, 1 Corinthians 15

      Like

    • When paul was persecuting kristians, he did not find Craig’s minimal facts convincing. All throughout his letters where is there mention that your god first appeared to women or that the tomb was discovered empty by them ? when ehrman reads the creed in Greek, ehrman says Paul is writing as if has no knowledge of the women “LAST OF ALL he appeared…..”

      Like

    • not mentioning something that is repeated 4 times elsewhere – all 4 gospels agree, does not mean Paul had no knowledge of that or that he rejected it; he just does not mention that part of the history. Not a problem at all.

      Like

    • He PARROTS ARE CREED he parroted to a people. he words the CREED like he does not know of APPEARANCE to any woman. There is nothing in his wording which implies women were the first , then he concludes LAST OF ALL….

      imagine you only had mark, the way mark is worded, is there even one hint that the women changed their minds later on and reported? and if they did, why didn’t mark just have them report AS SOON as they departed like Matthew and Luke does?

      Like

    • “he just does not mention that part of the history”

      the scolarly explanation is that these accounts are written too late and they are developing.

      this is easily demonstrated by looking at each account individually and how the author WORDS his account for example , i quote :

      The contradicion between Matthew’s and John’s depictions of how Mary Magdalene (MM) learned of Jesus’ putative resurrection can be described quite easily from Matthew and John. In Matthew, the rock moving angel tells the women (McDonald agrees that “the women” in matthew always includes MM) that Jesus was not there for he had been raised. He then invites them into the tomb to see where he lay. He then tells them to
      go tell the disciples and that they can see Jesus in Galilee. As they leave the tomb “quickly” to go tell the disciples they run into Jesus, who says “greetings” just like he was host at a nerd party. They have no problem with who he is as they grab his feet and immediately start making a idoll out of him. There were two of them so I guess each one grabbed a foot. They sure wouldn’t have done this to the gardener! Anyway, that is Mattthew’s story about how MM came to learn that Jesus had been raised and the important point is that it is abundantly clear from the text that Matthew claims that MM knew Jesus had been raised before she
      saw him when she left the tomb.

      But how does this square with John’s story? It doesn’t. In John, Mary has no clue what had happened to Jesus’ body when she enters (John says “looked”) into the tomb. She sees two angels there (what is one angel more or less?) who wonder why she is weeping. She replies: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” But the first (rock moving) angel had just told her before she entered the
      tomb that Jesus had been raised! She then sees someone she thinks is the gardener and apparently thinks he might know what happened to Jesus. In response to the “gardeners” question about why was she weeping and who is she looking for, she says: “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” After this short conversation, Jesus decides to drop the charade and says “Mary”. After this, she immediately recognizes him and says
      “Rabbouni” and apparently grabs him. Anyway, that is John’s story about how MM came to learn that Jesus had been raised and it is clear from this that John claims that MM knew nothing about Jesus’ resurrection before she saw him.

      One could identify several contradictions in these little stories but the overriding clear contradiction is that Matthew clearly says that MM knew well before she sees Jesus that he had been raised, while John says she had no clue whatsoever about what had happened to jesus, even when she starts talking to him. There is a clear contradiction in these two accounts. It is also about a very important matter because these stories are supposedly basic evidences of the resurrection. And why are the two accounts contradictory? Because it is not possible that MM knew of the resurrection before seeing Jesus and at the same time did not know of the resurrection before seeing him. Therefore, the statements claiming these conditions existed from Matthew and John show they are contradictory an

      end quote

      just read matthew account by it self and see the blatant contradiction

      women come to the tomb, see the angel role away the stone and then the angel says, “don’t be afraid…. COME see the place”

      so the natural reading is that the women witness the rolling of the stone and become afraid when they see what the angel done to the guards OUTSIDE, then the angel tells them he will not do what they had witnessed the angel do to the guards, he says ” don’t be afraid” THEN he requests they follow him into the tomb

      Like

    • “39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
      40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.”

      one can clearly see that this about identification. john the last gospel invented lies that jesus had pierced hands and pierced side. no other gospel knows about johns lies. it seems like the synoptics only know about a shape shifting jesus and even unrecognized , john incorporates the shape shifting and has to find EVIDENCE of crucifixion on the body itself.

      Like

    • quote :
      Good point. If Luke imagined the risen Jesus to have visible wounds in his hands and feet, then why wouldn’t the disciples have noticed those wounds and identified him as being Jesus in the earlier appearance story (Luke 23:13-35)?
      Luke makes no mention of nails, hammers, pounding, nor of a spear wound, nor of a wound in Jesus’ side, nor wounds in Jesus’ hands, nor wounds in Jesus’ feet, either in his crucifixion story or in his resurrection appearance stories.
      Luke provides us with a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for Jesus offering his hands and feet to be examined–namely to prove that he has a physical body of flesh and bone, and that he is NOT a ghost.
      Furthermore, the failure of disciples of Jesus to recognize him on the road to Emmaus or while sitting around the table at a house in Emmaus, indicates that Luke did not imagine Jesus to have visible wounds on his hands and feet.

      quote :
      Good points. The claim that nails were used to fasten Jesus to the cross is supported only by the Fourth Gospel, and only in the doubting Thomas story, NOT in ANY Gospel account of the crucifixion.
      None of the canonical Gospel accounts of the crucifixion make any mention of hammers, or nails, or pounding, or wounds in Jesus’ hands, or wounds in Jesus’ feet. The doubting Thomas story is the only Gospel evidence for the use of nails in the crucifixion of Jesus.
      The resurrection appearance stories in Luke do not corroborate the doubting Thomas story and provide reason to doubt the historicity of that story. Matthew and Mark imply that the first appearances of Jesus to the twelve occurred in Galilee, NOT in Jerusalem, in which case the appearance stories in Luke and John are fictional. Matthew and Mark provide further evidence against the historicity of the doubting Thomas story.
      Given the historicaly unreliable character of the Fourth Gospel it is more likely that IF there were “appearances” experiences of Jesus after the crucifixion by the twelve, those PROBABLY first took place in Galilee a week or two after the crucifixion, meaning that the appearance stories in Luke and the Fourth Gospel are fictional, including the doubting Thomas story, which is the only Gospel evidence of the use of nails in Jesus’ crucifixion.

      ///

      now if you ONLY had the synoptics , you would not know about PIERCED hands and side.
      or pierced hands and feet.
      you would have no evidence from the post ressurected appearances , BASED on the synoptics, that there was a wounded jesus.

      just think about it, did the synoptics jesus ever stretch out his hands to reach out to something? wouldn’t a side wound /gap have been visiible? did each synoptic writer just decide to drop that side wound ?

      Like

  6. “He did not deserve to be persecuted and killed.
    He was worthy as the perfect sacrifice and atonement because of His intrinsic worth and sinlessness; but not “worthy” in the sense of deserving to be killed by sinful humans, since He was innocent and sinless.”

    “he thief did not deny anything that is core tenets of Christianity; Christ accepted his repentance at the level of his simple understanding at that time. The New Testament has not been written yet. ”

    Tell me about the craziness, I would point to the christianity!

    Also, why do christians neglect Psalm 40:12?

    Like

  7. it does not seem that the guilty criminal is seeing jesus as SINLESS from birth onward, he just says that he is being unjustly punished. For example, when people go around shooting people , we say that the victims were innocent and that they had done nothing wrong to be shot. in the same way, the guy on the cross did not see jesus as FREE from sin, only that the punishment he received was for no reason.

    Like

  8. and we see that crowd pleaser Pilate made a public declaration “why what crime has he done to receive crucifixion?”
    Either this is attempt to Christianise Pilate or Pilate does not see good evidence to nail the Kristyan god. again, this does not mean Pilate thought jesus was sinless, Christians made Pilate a Christian in the second century. So it is possible that the guilty criminal knew jesos was being crucified for no reason even the big fish Pilate could not find evidence for killing. this means the criminal could have heard the loud question attributed to the big fish Pilate not that the guilty criminal used to hear jesos preach.

    Like

  9. The repent thief asked the crucified messiah to save him. I see no problem with the account at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    • in the old testament persecuted jews were told to pray for their persecutors(jeremiah) . in old testament god listens to the prayers of the persecuted . luke does not seem to have the belief that jesus is a levitical sacrificial animal dying for the sins of people. luke seems to be saying that the entire crucifixion should not even be happening, it is a crime. luke portrays his jesus as a martyr, not as what you currently believe about jesus.
      the guy did not say jesus was SINLESS or PURE or 100% free from sin, only that in that current situation criminal wants a person who is unjustly punished to remember him. this is what humans have been doing for centuries. this is what persecuted have done for centuries. the criminal did not say that jesus was the “innocent lamb of god”

      Like

  10. “Worthy of death” = No; Jesus was innocent and sinless.

    “Worthy to be the ransom atonement for the sins of the world” = Yes,

    as He was sinless and holy and love; He paid the price for our sins. Revelation 5:9

    “Worthy are You . . .

    “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • so you along with the Romans would be calling for the execution of your pagan god because only shedding of a god could appease god. So why didn’t jesus openly Pontus Pilate and the pagans. “without the shedding of mangod there is no forgiveness of sins”
      Think about what you are saying. What you are saying is that had the Romans had your understanding they would have lovingly and willingly and happily NAILED jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Good point. If Luke imagined the risen Jesus to have visible wounds in his hands and feet, then why wouldn’t the disciples have noticed those wounds and identified him as being Jesus in the earlier appearance story (Luke 23:13-35)?

    “31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.”

    Like

    • QUOTE :

      On the subject of resurrection, the Gospels themselves offer
      compelling reason to be skeptical of resurrection claims. On more than
      one occasion, the Gospels tell us that significant numbers of people
      in Jesus’ day* were willing to believe in spurious resurrection
      fables. Jesus is portrayed in the Synoptics as asking his disciples
      “Who do men say that I am?” His disciples report to him that he is
      commonly believed to be John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the
      Prophets.

      In all of these accounts, a resurrected John the Baptist is mentioned
      first, i.e. as the most commonly-accepted “candidate” for Jesus’
      identity. Elsewhere, King Herod is portrayed as agreeing with this
      common belief. What is especially striking about this is that the
      Gospels also tell us that Jesus and John the Baptist were
      contemporaries, born about six months apart! Not only that, the
      Gospels tell us the two men knew each other, and interacted on more
      than one occasion.

      So, according to the testimony of the Gospel writers themselves, it
      was considered plausible at the time that one man could appear
      “resurrected” as another who lived at the same time. Now when we look
      at the “resurrection appearances” of Jesus, several of them describe
      him as being unrecognized by his own disciples and closest followers–
      i.e.,looking like someone else until “their eyes are opened” and they
      “recognize” this other person as Jesus. In the account of the
      “appearance” on the road to Emmaus, Jesus’ disciples spend hours
      discussing the Scriptures with an insightful interlocutor, whom they
      later “recognize” as Jesus. in John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene
      encounters someone she’s sure is a gardener, then “recognizes” him as
      Jesus when he says her name.

      If we take this belief that a holy man like John the Baptist–or
      Jesus–could be “resurrected” in the person of another, even a
      contemporary, these first “appearances” of Jesus deserve no more
      credence than the belief that Jesus himself was John the Baptist, the
      Sequel. No miraculous or supernatural explanation is necessary. The
      proto-Christian community could simply have started seeing Jesus in
      the faces of other “spiritual” types just as the Baptist’s community
      saw their leader “resurrected” in Jesus. Progressive growth of urban
      legend and a desire for more spectacular apparitions is sufficient to
      explain the later, more concrete accounts.

      In fact, the early “as-someone-else” appearances and the more
      “concrete” appearance accounts (such as the Doubting Thomas story)
      cancel each other out. Why? If we try to accept both sets of accounts,
      then we have to assume that the “as-someone-else” accounts present a
      deceptive entity who uses shape-shifting and/or Illusion spells/Jedi
      Mind Tricks to change his appearance. But if we have an entity like
      that, we have no way to know what it really looks like. It could just
      as easily fake the “wounds” Thomas stuck his finger into as the
      unrecognizable, non-wounded appearance it presented on the road to
      Emmaus and to Mary Magdalene at the tomb.

      Either that, or we must reject the (alleged, hearsay) “testimony” of
      the “witnesses” the Gospels describe as unreliable. They cannot tell
      us whether Jesus looked like some other person (who obviously was not
      covered in gashes, penetration wounds, and ribbons of skin hanging
      from his body), or like the reanimated body of the man they saw die of
      crucifixion, wounds and all. Even if we try and take their (alleged,
      hearsay) “testimony” at face value, we’re left with a deceptive,
      trickster-entity the Gospels themselves portray as being able to
      easily fool Jesus’ closest followers.

      ////////////

      think about this “SPEND hours…” with absolutely no knowledge of bruises, cuts , holes and wounds. think about this. either this is a DEVIL which shape shifts and is able to deceive people by shape shifting or the reason why there were no holes to be seen was because it is possible NO NAILS were used , only ties.

      Like

  12. Ijazian logic strikes again. Let’s break it down. Did you know that according to the Quran, the Quran cannot be followed. It’s very clear. The earliest revelation of the Koran says,

    “Who taught by the pen”

    So, clearly, Allah teaches by the pen, not verbal traditions. And Muhammad couldn’t read or write.

    So, as per ijazian logic of isolating an earlier text to the exclusion of the entire corpus, we now know that the Koran teaches that the Koran is false. And since the bible was already a written document, clearly the Koran is affirming the bible!!

    Might sound stupid but that is what ijaz has done above, and his lapdogs just lick it up.

    Muslim apologetics is increasingly becoming more pathetic and childish.

    Like

    • Sorry, but I only get bitch slapped by hot weather, not childish Muslims.

      Thanks for your concerns though

      Like

    • Paulus,
      You are right ….your argument does sound stupid.

      The reference is in Surat Alaq 96:4-5. That Allah taught by the pen could be a reference to previous revelations which had already been scribed, or it could be a reference to the fact that the Qur’an would also eventually be scribed. It could also refer to the Lauh al Mahfuz, or heavenly tablet which contains the pristine Qur’an scribed by a heavenly “pen.” The reference to the pen could also simply be in relation to Allah imparting to mankind the ability to aquire knowledge and record it by writing it down with the pen.

      From Tafsir al Maududi:
      “It is a great favor of Allah that starting man’s creation from a most insignificant state He made him possessor of knowledge which is the noblest attribute of creation, and He made him not only possessor of knowledge but also taught him the art of writing by the use of pen, which became the means of propagation, progress, dissemination and preservation of knowledge on a large scale. Had He not given man the knowledge of the art of pen and writing (by inspiration) his intellectual faculty would have stagnated, and it would have had no opportunity to develop, expand and become a means of transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next and make future progress.”

      There is no evidence for any ridiculous argument that the Qur’an teaches that that it is false.

      Meanwhile, as Ijazs’ more serious argument has clearly shown, Luke 23:39-43 clearly indicates that a belief in all core Christian doctrines are not required nor are they necessary according to Jesus himself and that one can achieve salvation simply by believing that Jesus was innocent, This would agree with the Qur’an, and therefore, accordingly…..all Muslims are saved through Islamic belief!!

      Like

    • @ Paulus,
      To be more accurate I should have said, “This would agree with the Qur’anic portrayal of Jesus…”

      I might add that the verse in question 96:4 does not negate the possibility that revelatory knowledge could be transmitted orally and accurately either indefinitely or at the very least until written down “by the pen” which was true in the case of the Qur’an, since we know that it was documented immediately after revelation, and then shortly later compiled into book form.

      The fact that Prophet Muhammad (sws) was illiterate is immaterial to the historical preservation of the Qur’an in its written form, as seen to by the very companions of the Prophet.

      What IS material, is how the disciples who were Aramaic speakers were illiterate and unable to read and write in any language…and yet, Christians claim that these illiterates were somehow able to accurately recollect the events, and write the books of the Bible in perfect and highly refined Greek, long after the alleged events occurred. Impossible.

      So according to those like you, illiteracy only matters when the person in question is Prophet Muhammad (sws) and somehow doesn’t really matter when it comes to the disciples of Christ. The double standard here is quite remarkable.

      Like

    • “I might add that the verse in question 96:4 does not negate the possibility”

      Precisely. Similarly, the text Ijaz refers to does not negate the possibility…(you finish the sentence)

      Why am I not surprised that you allow this for Islamic theology, but disallow it for Christians?

      You’ve proven the point exactly

      Like

    • Nice try. But it seems to me that the verse in Luke 23:39-43 does seem to negate the possibility……….

      It is clear that Jesus accepted the thief into paradise simply because he believed that Jesus was innocent, (Extra Christian Doctrinal baggage not required).

      If the possibility that Jesus is a God who died for our sins, (and that one must believe so to be saved)was true, then Jesus (or at least the unknown author of Luke) would have mentioned it…..but he did not. Therefore, that possibility is negated in the Biblical verses in question.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not sure why so many Christians are missing this point. I’m using the same logic they use for the John 20:28 statement.

      Like

    • Ijaz,
      I don’t think that they are missing the point, so much a it is just the usual double standards and deflection.

      Like

    • Well, in that case it is clear that Allah only teaches by the pen.

      I think you’ve seen the problem in Ijaz’s post- it’s only your pride stopping you from being consistent and fair.

      Like

    • If the possibility Allah revealed himself to muhammad via non scribal means, (Via Gabriel, oral tradition etc) was true, then Allah (or at least the unknown author of The Koran ) would have mentioned it…..but he did not. Therefore, that possibility is negated in the Koranic verse in question.

      Geez, son of Issam, you make my point so well. Thank you

      Like

    • paulus you are the same paulus here
      https://celsus.blog/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/#comment-2256

      Read, and your Lord is the most Generous –

      that “read” here clearly means to RECOGNIZE. doesn’t that sound like a verbal communication ?
      can either negate either written or verbal communication when it seems to be referring to recognition?

      Like

    • https://celsus.blog/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/#comment-2256

      paulus why holy spirit allowed you to pass judgement on an article even before you read it? don’t holy spirit have any shame?

      Like

    • Paulus,
      Your arguments are weak and fail to convince anyone with even a basic understanding of Islam. The author of the Qur’an (Almighty God Allah) did mention the means of revelation:

      “And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by REVELATION or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to REVEAL, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise. And thus We have REVEALED to you an INSPIRATION of Our command.” (Qur’an 42:52-53).

      The above verse encompasses the method of revelation being sent from God through the Archangel Gabriel and subsequently delivered to Prophet Muhammad (sws). All Muslims agree and believe that the entire corpus of the Qur’an was revealed in this way. Therefore, the Qur’an does not negate itself as you incorrectly surmise..

      Meanwhile, you are still left with the unfortunate problem in Luke 23:39-43, for which it seems you have no other answer for except to attack Islam.

      Like

    • @ Paulus
      Yes Allah did mention the means of revelation in the Qur’an itself:

      “And verily, you (O Muhammad (S)) are receiving the Quran from the One, All-Wise, All-Knowing” (Surat Naml:6)

      “Verily, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad (S)) the Book (this Quran) for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his (own) loss. And you (O Muhammad (S)) are not a Wakeel (trustee or disposer of affairs, or keeper) over them.” (Zumar:41)

      These are the Verses of the Book (the Quran), and that which has been revealed unto you (Muhammad (S)) from your Lord is the truth, but most men believe not. (ArRaad:1)

      Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a book (the Quran) in which there is Dhikrukum,(your Reminder or an honor for you i.e. honor for the one who follows the teaching of the Quran and acts on its teachings). Will you not then understand? (Anbiya:10)

      “And those who disbelieve say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus (it is sent down in parts), that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages” (Furqan:32)

      “It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” (AlHijr:9)

      And this Qur’an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth)…(Younus:37)

      How many more verses do you need?
      http://www.iqrasense.com/quran/what-is-quran-allah-describes-the-quran-in-the-quran.html

      We would never hear the end of it from Christians if the Bible had this many verses – which repeatedly make the divine claims that the Qur’an makes for itself confirming that it is a revelation of divine origin.

      The Bible simply cannot compare to the Holy Qur’an.

      Like

  13. Ijaz,
    From what I have seen, you never responded to these 2 posts that are above:

    He did not deserve to be persecuted and killed.

    He was worthy as the perfect sacrifice and atonement because of His intrinsic worth and sinlessness; but not “worthy” in the sense of deserving to be killed by sinful humans, since He was innocent and sinless.

    It was from a human point of view the greatest injustice ever done.

    But from a divine point of view; God the Father took the greatest injustice ever done and turned it for His own glory and made it into an act of justice against sin and mercy and love for sinners.

    Nor this:

    Also, to use those 5 verses [should have been 4 verses, Luke 23:39-43] the way you are attempted to use them, backfires against Islam, since the same document goes on to describe Jesus’ death and burial and then in chapter 24, His resurrection from the dead and bodily appearances to His disciples.

    The Death of Jesus
    44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

    The Burial of Jesus
    50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

    55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

    chapter 24

    Empty Tomb

    Resurrection

    Appearances to the women

    Appearance to the 2 disciples on the Emmaus Road

    Appearance to the 11 disciples in the upper room

    36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.
    38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
    39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
    40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

    Luke 24:36-40

    Like

    • Look at how long my comments are, do you see me replying to any lengthy points? No.

      When I get in front of my laptop I will.

      Like

    • True; you have not responded to much. just a couple of short responses.

      But I don’t get your comment about John 20:28.

      Reasons why your argument does not work is because the thief knows Jesus is going to die and believes somehow in His eternal kingdom (eternal life), so somehow the thief knew that Jesus was the victor, even though He is going to die; and the rest of Luke 23 teaches the crucifixion and death and Luke 24 teaches the resurrection from the dead. (Empty tomb, bodily appearances, women’s testimony)

      and also about repentance and faith.
      Luke 24:25-27
      Luke 24:44-47

      Like

    • Ken,
      I think most if not all Muslims would agree that Jesus did not deserve to be persecuted and killed.

      However, Muslims and Jews would both agree that Jesus was NOT the perfect sacrifice and atonement. and this is also supported by the fact that the OT repeatedly condemns Human sacrifice as an abomination to God. Also Repentance is a higher form of Atonement, because one must actually humble the ego and self, in asking God for forgiveness. For that reason, sacrifice is considered by Jews to be a lower if not THE LOWEST form of atonement, since it is easy to shed blood, but harder to humble oneself before God.

      So if you are saying that Jesus was “worthy” of being the “perfect sacrifice” for the LOWEST form of atonement according to the Jews themselves, then this is really an insult to the honor of Prophet Jesus (as). No one who truly loves and follows Prophet Jesus could ever accept such an insult, which is why Muslims outright reject such accusations and faulty theology.

      As for your second point, try to stick to the topic of this blog post. Those questions and issues have been addressed repeatedly by Muslims on this blog and there are good answers for those items.

      Like

    • Except all the first Christians were all Jews in the first century, or most all; They understood the prophesies of Isaiah 42, 52, 53, Psalm 22, 16; Psalm 2; Psalm 110; Daniel 9:24-27; Daniel 7:13-14 as about the Messiah, His atoning death, and His Sonship and Deity; and Psalm 16 and Jonah about the resurrection.

      Like

    • why in johns account does mary wonder who stole the body/who took it away? it seems that by johns time the body being placed somewhere unknown was something which was believed among many. notice how johns mary does not question like the synoptics?

      Like

    • “But from a divine point of view; God the Father took the greatest injustice ever done and turned it for His own glory and made it into an act of justice against sin and mercy and love for sinners.”

      you want to hate on the actions of romans but at the same time the father wanted them because he would “make it into an act of justice”
      so why didn’t the jesus tell the romans to crucify him ?
      imagine the romans accepting jesus as their savior, they would still need to crucify him per your logic.

      Like

    • “It was from a human point of view the greatest injustice ever done.”

      no it wasn’t

      king of the jews = political threat and upon his entry every one was declaring him messiah. so in roman thinking this was dangerous stuff.

      the only question is, why they didn’t get rid of him earlier? ehrman thinks the triumphant entry is a MISREMEMBERED event.

      quote :
      Jesus was charged with a crime, and he did not defend himself. It is hard to blame the Romans for finding him guilty.

      Like

    • i recently heard a debate where a missionary admitted that jesus became CRIMINAL on the cross. this was interesting because christians say that ALL sins in all years were poured on jesus. so it is only logical that rapist, murderer , homosexual, adulterer , fornicator etc was being PUNISHED on the cross.
      jesus then was JUSTLY punished.

      Like

    • timeline 21:14

      “in a SENSE his blood was NOT INNOCENT”

      which implies in a SENSE he was JUSTLY punished.

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: