Peace.
Sorry if I gave that impression. I do understand that you are claiming that Muhammad could be the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18, since the Ishmaelites are indeed "brethren" of the Israelites.
Okay, we have both made our points on this matter and understand each other. Let's move on to other relevant issues.
Can I ask what makes you believe that Jesus went to Kashmir?
Here is a quote from a Christian website:
"Throughout the Bible, God refers to the people of Israel as His sheep. There is no indication that this is referring to the Gentiles. Those other sheep are the other tribes of Israel. We find in Matthew 10:6 Christ’s instruction to His disciples, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The apostle James directly addressed the “lost tribes of Israel” in James 1:1, “…to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad…” The Jews also made the same reference in John 7:35: “…will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles?”
Who are the "other sheep" in John 10:16?
There were only 2 tribes of Israel living in Judea at the time of Jesus pbuh, and these were the tribes of Judah and some from the tribe of Benjamin. Ten tribes were taken into captivity centuries before Jesus pbuh. They had settled in (and around) Kashmir, according to this Jewish site:
The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes
So Jesus went to preach to them as part of the fulfillment of his clearly stated mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Matthew 15:24]. Indeed, his mission would not have been complete without undertaking this journey. There is evidence for his presence in India in historical records. The following link (see page 48) includes historical references to Jesus (it's not well discussed, but various references are quoted):
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/download/RR200204.pdf
In addition, his tomb has been discovered in Kashmir India, and there is a website dedicated to it, including a picture of the feet carvings of Jesus pbuh showing the nail piercings on both feet, and a video explaining the significance of them:
Feet Carvings
In addition, a verse of the Qur'an [23:50] gives an apt description of Kashmir (as an elevated land of valleys and springs of running water) where Jesus and Mary are said to have sought refuge (from being captured again by Jews and/or Romans after the attempted crucifixion)
Yet we know that the disciples were beaten, imprisoned, executed for proclaiming that Jesus was crucified, died and was resurrected. If personal safety was an issue, they would have stopped after Stephen was stoned to death. That didn't happen.
To refer to someone who fell unconscious on a cross (immediately after receiving a drugged drink) and appeared to have died, and who later stood up from his 'sleep', as metaphorically 'rising from the dead', is not unacceptable.
Actually, I found this interesting article on precisely that topic.
Why Did the Roman Soldier Stab Jesus with His Spear?
As we know, most people who died on the cross suffered for many hours, and even days. Jesus died more quickly. Perhaps the Roman soldier wanted to make sure He really was dead, so he stabbed Him.
Yes, crucifixion was a lingering type of death which would take an average of 3 days, sometimes lasting for up to a week, and even 9 days has been reported. Your link states:
"Let us remember that Roman soldiers were not medical staff. If they pronounced someone dead, they had to be sure the victim had died—in the case of executions, their own lives depended on it. When the soldier who heard Jesus “breathe his last” (Mark 15.37; Luke 23.46) reported it to his superiors who were about to break Jesus’ legs, the spear thrust was probably executed simply to verify that the report was accurate. Or perhaps the soldier who was breaking the legs of the executed prisoners was simply vindictive and wanted to inflict an insult on the prematurely dead Jesus; though, that would be quite out of character of the highly disciplined Roman military. In any event, when “blood and water” flowed out and as the bleeding stopped, it was clear the death sentence had been carried out."
I agree with much of what is stated. The Roman soldier was simply trying to verify that Jesus was not feigning death, for he had bowed his head and shut his eyes, and could have been pretending so that his legs may not be broken. If so, he would have responded to the spear. This seems to have been the actual intention of the Roman soldier. I also agree that if the bleeding had stopped, this would have meant his death. However, there is no mention of the bleeding having stopped in the Bible, so I cannot agree with the statement that
'it was clear the death sentence had been carried out'.
The Roman soldier assumed that as Jesus did not squirm in response to the spear, he must have died. However, the same non-response would occur from a fainted Jesus. He bowed his head immediately after drinking the drink he was given whilst on the cross [John 19], so the drink either killed him due to being poisoned, or rendered him unconscious due to being drugged, most probably with an opiate. The Roman soldier however did not realise this; he did not put two and two together.
The same link of yours also states:
It took nearly 1,800 years before we would know why Jesus died in six hours, when the norm was 36. In 1805 Dr. Gruner wrote in A Commentary on the Death of Jesus that Jesus had died of a ruptured heart muscle. The initial account by Gruner was rebuffed by evangelists of his day. However, in 1847 Dr. Stroud of London corroborated Gruner’s assertions when he released his own report based on numerous post mortem examinations that claimed Jesus had not died directly from the crucifixion, but from a “laceration or rupture of the heart.”
The problem with this explanation is that the Bible states that Jesus died after receiving the drink, so the suggestion of actually dying from a ruptured heart clearly contradicts the Bible, making it a position which Christians would have problems with. Besides, the purpose of the spear thrust being merely to test for feigning, there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the spear went all the way to the heart. A relatively superficial and minor wound was all that was required.
Why do you insert "actual" into Hebrews 5:7 but claim that in the Gospels it was just a metaphor?
The verse says that Jesus' prayer was heard. Everyone who prays has their prayers heard by God. It doesn't mean that they are always answered.
The Father heard Jesus. He didn't answer the prayer though. God knew He was going to die.
God is not deaf; He hears everything. There is no need to say that 'he was heard because of his Godly fear' if all that is meant was that God hears all anyway. Does God become deaf to the prayers of those who have no Godly fear? Without a shadow of doubt, it clearly means his prayers to be saved from death on the cross were answered by God and he did not die on it.
The Greek word used is "anastesetai". It means rise from the dead.
It literally just means 'he will stand', and would apply to someone who was unconscious, and recovered from it.
It was used 5 times, 4 in which Jesus predicted He will rise from the dead, and another time in John 11:23 in which Jesus told Martha that her brother will rise from the dead.
Greek Concordance: ἀναστήσεται (anastēsetai) -- 5 Occurrences
And Jesus made it very clear that the illness of Lazarus was not until death, and that he was only 'asleep', i.e. unconscious, and near death, so it could also be said to be a death, more so as it would have been until death if Jesus had not prayed for him to God.
Everything in the Bible indicates that it was a reference to Jesus being killed.
Here is the Greek word for "kill" in that passage, and how it is used in the Bible. It clearly means to put someone to death
Strong's Greek: 615. ἀποκτείνω (apokteinó or apoktennó) -- 74 Occurrences
It is common for people to say 'my parents will kill me', and it is never taken literally. So to insist it always means a literal killing goes against it's well-understood usage.
Jesus did not doubt that it was the Father's will that He die. He rebuked Peter for trying to reprimand Him. Never did He say that He did not believe it was the Father's will that He die.
You are correct, the disciples did not ask God to not make them suffer. Jesus did ask the Father to spare Him... it is His will.
And his prayer is proof that he did not understand the prophecy to mean actual death, hence his earnest prayers against actual death which seemed to be the likely outcome according to his estimation.
So would you consider the possibility that the Thamud did not actually kill the camel, since there is no confirmation in the Quran of any sign of life being checked? BTW if I am not mistaken, the Quran also accuses the Jews of killing some of their prophets. Were their signs taken also? If not, do you believe they didn't actually die?
Some have suggested that the killing of the prophets means the attempts to kill them, and that it also means boycotting them and opposing them. It is not necessary that it means a literal kiling. Infact, the Qur'an does not mention any prophet actually being killed by the Jews or anyone else, but it is full of references to how the prophets were saved from the attempts of their enemies to kill them.
As for the vital signs being checked, this would indeed be question if the human or animal presumed to have been killed was later seen alive. If for example Timothy McVeigh was seen walking in the streets by people after having being electrocuted by the state, it would never be said he actually died and resurrected. It would be said that the authorities erred in concluding that they had actually succeeded in carrying out the sentence against him, however unlikely this might seem at first sight. So human error by the Romans cannot be ruled out.
Pilate washed his hands of the matter. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that he saved Jesus in any way.
He washed his hands in public, after doing his best to try to avoid crucifying him despite intense pressure from the Jews. His wife even saw a dream giving the message not to trouble Jesus. Why would God send a dream of such nature. If the plan was to crucify him, why not send a dream urging Pilate to hurry up and carry out God's purpose??
And when Jesus was praying earnestly, why is it said that an angel came to strengthen him in his prayers, as a result of which he prayed more earnestly? Should the angel not have been sent to persuade him to give up praying against divine decree and the purpose for which he was sent? Thus, thinking he literally died is contrary to reason from various angles.
And after Pilate's repeated attempts to openly save him, he met Nicodemus by night, in secret, and had Jesus put on the cross on Friday knowing full well he would have to be taken down for the upcoming sabbath, which meant he would be on the cross for only a few hours, and probably agrred on the plan to drug the drink to make him appear as though he had died, which would mean his bones would not be broken, and even handed Jesus over to his friends, whereas the corpse of a criminal would normally be thrown to the dogs. Apart from such clues, it would not be likely for the Bible to mention any such secret plan of Pilate because this would have compromised his position with Rome as well as with the Jews.
They seem to have built houses like everyone else.
It is possible the Nabateans used them as houses as well as built other houses. As for their usage as tombs, I am yet to see evidence for this, as it is just a claim. And even if so, this would not be proof the people of Thamud used them as tombs too. Infact, it seems rather strange to use large overground structures in which humans can live as tombs instead of houses.
Historians and archaeologist do not always adhere to their original opinions. The changing speculations of historians should not form the basis of anyone's faith. But as I said, I have not studied this matter myself anyway, so I really have to read up on it to discuss it further. Another point to note is that the Qur'an said in the 7th century CE that Pharaoh's body was saved as a sign for those to come after him, after he said he believed in the God of the Israelites when he was drowning (he apparently believed to save his body, not his soul, so his earthly body was made a sign for those who would seek right guidance). This verse remained unproven until non-Muslim archaelogists discovered the mummified body of Pharaoh in the early 20th century. So the signs of the Qur'an will continue to be made manifest, and some of it's treasures appear to be discovered after it has been criticised.
Peace.
