The Lord of Mysteries

@SorryAyy @Esquestifler @dawahxdialogues @Acts17David Pagans also call God "Alaha" doesnt mean they were referring to Muhammad's God. "Alaha" was simply a generic word for God; by itself, it proves nothing. Likewise, the New Testament portrays Jesus quoting Old Testament passages that, in the Hebrew text, contained the divine name.

@Esquestifler @dawahxdialogues @Acts17David Jesus never said YHWH, he would have said Allaha though. Arab Christians call God Allah btw. You’re just a bit misinformed

LOL you said they’d be executed for coming in the name of a different god! The question is very simple mr. sheckles, did Muhammad ﷺ claim to come in the name of the God of the prophets prior or did he claim a different god with different prophets??? direct answer to the substance GO!

@ThankGod1903 @psami_ It's either I am terrible or ke7 is an illegal move

@psami_ Ke7 Qh7 black plays something else then sc the Rook

So nobody can solve this 😏

@invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani You always respond to everything except my actual point. Alleged tensions in the Gospel narratives don't refute the historical reality of the events themselves. I'm presenting a historical argument, not one that depends on assuming the Bible is inspired.

You are not presenting “historical facts.” You are mixing one secure fact with several disputed traditions and then pretending the resurrection is the only serious conclusion. Geza Vermes would grant that Jesus was crucified and that some of his followers later became convinced that God had raised him. But that is not the same as establishing that a corpse physically left a tomb. The burial traditions already conflict. In Mark and Luke the burial is rushed and incomplete, which is why the women return with spices. In John, Joseph and Nicodemus have already buried Jesus with a huge quantity of spices according to Jewish custom. One account says the burial still needed completion, the other says it had already been completed. Then you place a check mark next to “the tomb was found empty” as if this is as certain as the crucifixion. It is not. Paul, our earliest resurrection source, never mentions women discovering an empty tomb, angels, guards, burial cloths or anyone inspecting the grave. He says Jesus died, was buried, was raised and appeared. That does not confirm the later Gospel narratives. Those narratives are not uniform either. Mark has three women, Matthew two, Luke several and John initially presents Mary Magdalene alone. Mark has one young man, Matthew one angel, Luke two men and John two angels at a different point in the story. In Mark the women flee and tell no one. In Matthew they immediately report it and meet Jesus. In Luke they report it and are dismissed. In John Mary first says the body has been removed, not that Jesus has risen. Matthew sends the disciples to Galilee. Luke orders them to remain in Jerusalem. Luke appears to place the ascension on Easter Sunday, while Acts, written by the same author, places it forty days later. Most damaging of all, the earliest recoverable ending of Mark stops at 16:8 and contains no appearance of the risen Jesus. The later verses with appearances, the commission, miraculous signs and the ascension were added afterwards. The more detailed and physical stories come later: grasping feet in Matthew, eating fish in Luke and touching wounds in John. Vermes’ point is obvious: the tradition develops. Your claim about Paul and James is also inflated. Paul places his own visionary experience in the same appearance list as Peter, James and the apostles. Paul did not meet a recently revived body walking around Jerusalem. James is said to have received an appearance, but Paul never says that this appearance converted him, and no canonical resurrection narrative describes it. The martyrdom argument proves even less. Suffering for a conviction shows sincerity, not truth. We do not possess reliable accounts showing that most apostles were individually offered the choice to deny a physical resurrection or die. So no, the resurrection does not “best explain all the facts.” You first promote disputed Christian traditions into facts, harmonize their contradictions, exaggerate what we know about Paul, James and the apostles, and then declare the miracle victorious. Vermes’ conclusion is far more disciplined: history can establish that Jesus died and that resurrection belief arose very early. History cannot establish that a dead body was supernaturally transformed and physically exited a tomb. That final step is not history. It is theology presented as if the debate were already over.

The Resurrection Case Falls Apart Under Historical Scrutiny Christians often present the resurrection as though the evidence is simple, unified and overwhelming: Jesus predicted it, the women found the tomb empty, the disciples saw him physically alive, and four independent Gospels confirm the same event. Geza Vermes shows that this traditional picture is far more confident than the sources allow. The first problem is that the resurrection was not the central message of the historical Jesus as preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus primarily preached the imminent kingdom of God. Clear teachings about his own bodily resurrection are surprisingly scarce. The detailed predictions in which Jesus announces that he will be arrested, killed and rise after three days create an obvious historical contradiction. If he had repeatedly explained this in clear language, why did his disciples behave as though the arrest, crucifixion and empty tomb were completely unexpected? They fled, despaired, doubted the women and assumed the body had been removed. The simplest explanation is not that every disciple somehow forgot the central prediction of Jesus, but that the precise predictions were shaped after the event and placed on his lips to turn a humiliating execution into a divinely planned victory. The Gospel accounts themselves do not give a single coherent history. They disagree about who visited the tomb, why they went, how many heavenly figures appeared, what message was given, whether the women spoke or remained silent, where Jesus appeared and when he ascended. Mark ends with terrified women who tell no one. Matthew has them immediately report the news and meet Jesus. Luke keeps the disciples in Jerusalem. Matthew directs them to Galilee. John combines Jerusalem and Galilee in two different endings. Calling all of this “different perspectives” does not solve the problem. It merely hides it beneath apologetic language. The oldest recoverable ending of Mark is especially damaging to the traditional narrative. Mark 16:8 contains no appearance of the risen Jesus. The women flee in fear, and the Gospel stops. The familiar appearances, the commission, the miraculous signs and the ascension in Mark 16:9 to 20 were added later. This means that the earliest Gospel originally did not show Jesus physically alive after his death. The tradition becomes more elaborate in the later Gospels. Matthew adds guards, an earthquake and women grasping Jesus’ feet. Luke adds Emmaus, touching, fish eating and an ascension. John adds locked rooms, Thomas touching wounds and another Galilean appearance. The later the account, the more detailed, physical and apologetically useful the resurrection becomes. Paul does not rescue the traditional picture. In 1 Corinthians 15 he gives the earliest surviving list of appearances, yet he does not mention the women, the angels, the discovery of the empty tomb, Thomas touching wounds or Jesus eating with the disciples. He includes appearances to five hundred people and to James that the canonical resurrection stories do not narrate. More importantly, Paul places his own visionary experience in the same sequence as the appearances to Peter and the other apostles. His experience was not an ordinary meeting with a recently revived body walking around Jerusalem. It was a heavenly revelation. That does not prove that every earlier experience was identical, but it destroys the claim that Paul clearly confirms the later physical Gospel narratives. Text continues...⬇️

@MIAWalmart @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani The rest has nothing to do with the resurrection, just different reports that can be reconciled

@cryptojay02 @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani 4. Gospel events are highly exaggerated. It's a well known position as a legendary development. If you follow Mark, and Luke, the outcome is pretty tame. Synoptics say he ate passover then got crucified. Matthew states that right after there were dead saints running...

@MIAWalmart @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani would have been to produce the body. Instead, the earliest Jewish response was not, "His body is still there," and we don't see Josephus writing there was never a tomb to begin with . We can logically infer there was a tomb and it was empty

@MIAWalmart @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani We can reasonably infer that the tomb was empty because the earliest Christians publicly proclaimed Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem, where his body could have been checked. If Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb, the simplest way to crush the movement

@MIAWalmart @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani If the crucifixion really happened, we should expect real historical effects. If it were only an illusion, the historical evidence should look very different. We shouldn't see convictions of the resurrection of Jesus and an explosive movement from that conviction

@cryptojay02 @invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani Probably a bit too much by labelling it as a historical reasoning. It's a minimal fact argument. There are some issues: 1. We also believe that Crucifixion as an event did occur. This is understood by scholars from Josephus Flavius who notes in around 90 CE. So it's fine.

@invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani When you compare the competing explanations like hallucination, conspiracy, legend, apparent death, or resurrection, the resurrection has the greatest explanatory power. It best explains all of the facts without requiring a series of additional assumptions

@invitingtheolog @AlmahdiWesam @Fearless__Truth @IjazTheTrini @lil_mauratzhs @Leafywashere00 @belle_liuu @qadissiyah636 @HalalNation_ @MrAdnanRashid @KhalilAndani Jesus' own brother who was initially unconvinced were dramatically converted after experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. ✔️✔️ These are the historical data that need explaining.

@ZakirHussainMDI @Emperoz_Dynasty @Kryptotajeer @JeromeChukwuwem who appeared in the burning bush was God. And even your Qur'an supports this. When Muhammad was writing what he was hearing, he describes Moses speaking with God, not merely an ordinary angel. So instead of refuting my position, your own Qur'an actually supports it and refutes u

@ZakirHussainMDI @Emperoz_Dynasty @Kryptotajeer @JeromeChukwuwem I don't see how Acts 7 refutes my point. Acts 7:31 explicitly says the Angel spoke as God, saying, "I am the God of your fathers." So the angel is speaks with God's own authority and identifying Himself as God. This is also consistent with Deuteronomy 33:16, which says the One

"Did Moses Speak to God or to the angel Gabriel?" - GodLogic "tHERE wErE aNgElS in the VICINITY" - Itachi's Shawty

@korrathetaymi Your argument only follows if Jesus didn't send Paul.

As a Christian, is your hope really in Jesus or in Paul of Tarsus? Jesus preached obedience to God and the Law. James emphasized faith expressed through works. Paul shifted the focus almost entirely to Jesus’ death, arguing that faith apart from works of the Law brings justification. If your theology comes primarily from Paul rather than from the words of Jesus himself, who are you actually following?

@korrathetaymi The writers were referring to themselves not some 7th century pervert

The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, a work generally dated to the third or fourth century, preserves another tradition about someone who would come after Jesus, someone who would “Sow the word among the nations.” Who fulfilled that description? Whose message brought uncompromising monotheism to nations across the world before the Antichrist appears and Christ returns? This was written hundreds of years before Muhammad ﷺ appeared, yet Christians still ask, “Where is Muhammad in Christian and Jewish literature?” 😂✌️

@ZakirHussainMDI @Emperoz_Dynasty @Kryptotajeer @JeromeChukwuwem This fits perfectly with the New Testament’s description in Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 of the Torah being delivered through angels

@ZakirHussainMDI @Emperoz_Dynasty @Kryptotajeer @JeromeChukwuwem There is literally no issue with saying revelations were given through angels. But In Exodus 3, the text explicitly describes God himself speaking directly, identifying himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

@invitingtheolog That's the very point you still need to establish, not assume.

@invitingtheolog while the Synoptics present the final meal in Passover terms to highlight its significance. Simply repeating the calendar difference doesn't prove the Synoptics intended a strict chronological claim rather than a theological presentation.

The Last Supper Contradiction Christians Can't Harmonize Christians often argue that every apparent contradiction in the Bible can be harmonized if we just interpret the texts correctly. But historical scholarship does not begin with the assumption that the four Gospels must agree. It asks a much simpler question: what do the texts actually say? John P. Meier, one of the most respected historical Jesus scholars and himself a Catholic priest, addresses the chronology of Jesus' final days in A Marginal Jew. His conclusion is remarkably straightforward. After examining every major harmonization, he concludes that the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel are in direct disagreement. The issue is not whether Jesus died on a Friday. All four Gospels agree that the Last Supper took place on Thursday evening and that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The contradiction concerns what day of Nisan that Friday actually was. The Synoptic Gospels clearly present the Last Supper as the Passover meal. Mark explicitly says the disciples prepared the meal "when they sacrificed the Passover lamb." Jesus even says that he desired to eat "this Passover" with his disciples. That means Thursday evening was already the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan, because Jewish days began at sunset. Consequently, Jesus is crucified on Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan, which is Passover Day. John presents something completely different. In John, the Jewish authorities refuse to enter Pilate's headquarters because they still need "to eat the Passover." If they have not yet eaten the Passover on Friday morning, then the Last Supper the previous evening could not have been the Passover meal. John confirms this again by calling the day of Jesus' trial and crucifixion "the Day of Preparation for the Passover." In John's chronology Jesus dies on the fourteenth of Nisan, at the very time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple. These are mutually exclusive chronologies. Jesus cannot both eat the Passover and not yet have eaten the Passover. He cannot both die on the fifteenth of Nisan and on the fourteenth of Nisan. The same Friday cannot simultaneously be Passover Day and the day before Passover. This is precisely why Meier spends page after page examining every major attempt to rescue the texts. Some scholars proposed that different Jewish groups used different calendars. Others suggested Galileans and Judeans celebrated Passover on different days. Annie Jaubert famously argued that Jesus followed an ancient priestly calendar similar to the one known from Qumran. Meier systematically dismantles these proposals. He notes there is no historical evidence that Pharisees and Sadducees celebrated two different Passovers in Jerusalem. There is no evidence that Galileans followed a different calendar from Judeans. There is no evidence that Jesus celebrated a sectarian Qumran Passover. Throughout the Gospels Jesus consistently participates in the worship and feast calendar of the Jerusalem Temple, not an alternative Essene calendar. Even worse, Jaubert's reconstruction creates an even larger historical problem. To save the contradiction between John and the Synoptics, she moves the Last Supper from Thursday to Tuesday. But now she has to claim that all four Gospels are wrong about the very day on which the Last Supper occurred. As Meier observes, the irony is striking: the Gospels become "correct" where they disagree and "incorrect" where they agree. That is not historical reconstruction. It is special pleading. Meier therefore concludes that these harmonizations are "contrived maneuvers to avoid one obvious fact": the Synoptics and John disagree directly over whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal and whether Jesus died on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan. Notice what this means. This is not a Muslim argument. It is not an atheist argument. (Text continues below the pictures...)