Why Quran rejects crucifixion of Christ by the Jews?

[Shad]

The video isn't relevant. It doesn't speak about the opinion of the citizens of Judea about the citizens of Israel.

Sooda said nothing about citizens.

I'm not looking for specific words.

So the wars and OT means nothing. I do not think you watched the video in good faith nor have read the OT at all which is typical of Christians.

 

[dybmh]

Keep in mind you have confused what Sooda said as if it were a quote when it was no such thing. So I question if you actually watched the video and understood it considering your blunder.

I really did watch the video. But if u don't believe me, nevermind.

 

[dybmh]

Sooda said nothing about citizens.



So the wars and OT means nothing. I do not think you watched the video in good faith nor have read the OT at all which is typical of Christians.

I'm not Christian, Shad.

And I did watch it.

The video is about the beginning of authorship. It's mentioned several times. And the speaker uses qualifiers on virtually every conclusion made ( seems to me, it's plausible, it's possible that, etc.. )

I'm done discussing this with you. Feel free to have the last word if u choose to reply.

 

[Shad]

I'm not Christian, Shad.

My mistake. I typically find that a lot of Christians have never read their scriptures in an serious manner. Ergo why I pointed out the OT regarding the division of the state into 2 states.

The video is about the beginning of authorship. It's mentioned several times. And the speaker uses qualifiers on virtually every conclusion made ( seems to me, it's plausible, it's possible that, etc.. )

Yes as those authors are often the sources we have ergo who they are matters. As I said a lot of the views of Israel are only from a Judea source.

I'm done discussing this with you. Feel free to have the last word if u choose to reply.

Seems like you lack the ability to put in much effort here. In the OT there was decades of war between the two yet you do not think war would cause ill feelings of people. Why the war is being waged is another question you need to ask yourself. Jehu coup. Jehoahaz being called evil in Kings. Jehoash's war with Judah. Jeroboam II religious idolatry, tolerance of foreign religions. And so on all which you can read in the OT

 

[Kenny]

It doesnt say trinity here. This is a different verse.

There are other verses that says things like "Have you taken your own ego as God", you think that also creates a trinity?

How about when the Quran says "Did you take your wealth and children as God's besides Allah"? Does that mean God, money, children, Jesus, Mary, Spirit, the word, everything is part of the trinity? You should read the Quran. It says people have taken their religious clergy as God's. This is common in the Quran.

This verse doesn't say "Trinity".

If you wish ill give you another verse that mentions the trinity.

5:73 Rejecters indeed are those who have said: “God is third of three!” There is no god except One god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.

Peace.

OK.. I guess it is how one views it. When "three" is placed in the same sentence as God, Jesus and Mary, one tends to think he is talking about the Trinity.

When another verse places Mary as God, it kinda lends to think that she is included.

But, regardless, I am fine if it doesn't. Still don't agree with the Mohammadanian precepts but I respect the right of those who do and will support the person's right to hold to it.

 

[firedragon]

OK.. I guess it is how one views it. When "three" is placed in the same sentence as God, Jesus and Mary, one tends to think he is talking about the Trinity.

When another verse places Mary as God, it kinda lends to think that she is included.

But, regardless, I am fine if it doesn't. Still don't agree with the Mohammadanian precepts but I respect the right of those who do and will support the person's right to hold to it.

Well, in that case, in the same sentence, you missed spirit. That would make it a quad, not triad.

Also, it says "Jesus the son of mary", thats one person.

 

[firedragon]

When another verse places Mary as God, it kinda lends to think that she is included.

Then, money is also included.

Read the book.

 

[Harel13]

Well, thank you for that. It was certainly interesting.
However, as @dybmh rightly said, Mr. Finkelstein uses a lot of "must" and "probably" and I didn't really hear much proof based off of actual archeological discoveries. Mostly it sounded like a modern, totally secular take on the Bible (loved the part where he said that it can't be that King Chezkiyah destroyed other altars just for religious reasons, that there had to be political and economic reasons as well).
Furthermore, as dymbh stated as well, this isn't on the subject we were talking about, though.

On that note, @sooda, if you've got anything for:

Israel and Judea despised each other. Judea considered the Jews in the north to be Hellenized half breeds.. and they were more prosperous than Judea.

I'd be happy to hear. So far I see much speculation. If you want to end the discussion with the stalemate argument of "go read", that's fine too.

 

[Kenny]

Then, money is also included.

.

Yes... but that would be a false god as would Mary if you would give her that designation,

 

[firedragon]

Yes... but that would be a false god as would Mary if you would give her that designation,

The problem brother is that the Quran is eternally telling exactly what you said there. These are all false God's. Money is a false God. Your ego is a false God. Dont worship it.

You should and have empathy towards a language. The word ilah (I. L. A. H) is not really "GOD". It means "Divinity" or "Deity" or "Anything Divine". What the Quran says is that "There is no divinity other than God" is the primary creed of the Muslims.

So even your own Mullahs and priests are not divine. So use your "Aqal" or your personal intellect, not worship anything or anyone blindly. Thats the central foundation of the Quran.

So you should try your best to make the distinction between making anything divine and God. Just because the English translation says God as in "Dont make your wealth your god" doesnt mean GOD himself, it is ilah, not Allah. Try and make that distinction.

Peace.

 

[Shad]

Well, thank you for that. It was certainly interesting.
However, as @dybmh rightly said, Mr. Finkelstein uses a lot of "must" and "probably" and I didn't really hear much proof based off of actual archeological discoveries.

He brought up a few wars. I also brought up reading the OT.

Mostly it sounded like a modern, totally secular take on the Bible (loved the part where he said that it can't be that King Chezkiyah destroyed other altars just for religious reasons, that there had to be political and economic reasons as well).
Furthermore, as dymbh stated as well, this isn't on the subject we were talking about, though.

Biblical archaeology dropped literal in the 70s.

Dymbh wants a unrealistic level of evidence while refusing to read the references I made and the OT. The rhetoric is in the OT itself.

 

[Harel13]

He brought up a few wars.

I guess I missed that. And so, supposedly this hate between Northern Israel and Southern Israel continued for the next 700 or so years, despite the fact that by Jesus's time, most people identified as Judeans, Benjamites or Levites (as most of the ten tribes of Northern Israel were lost) and all had been exiled during the Babylonian Exile?

Biblical archaeology dropped literal in the 70s

It didn't even sound like archeology, though, whether biblical or not. Just an odd interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Shad]

I guess I missed that. And so, supposedly this hate between Northern Israel and Southern Israel continued for the next 700 or so years, despite the fact that by Jesus's time, most people identified as Judeans, Benjamites or Levites (as most of the ten tribes of Northern Israel were lost) and all had been exiled during the Babylonian Exile?

You a missing a huge chunk of history. The Assyrian invasions of Israel started in 730 BCE and was completed in 720-717 BCE (Siege holdouts). Babylon replaced Assyria during the early 600s. Judah was conquered completely 586 BCE. The 10 tribes were supposedly removed between 730-710.

It didn't even sound like archeology, though, whether biblical or not. Just an odd interpretation of the Bible.

See above. The two kingdoms only existed in parallel from 931 BCE until 717 BCE. A lot of the OT was written and edited by pro-Judah views. It is a one sided view. The video adds some information regarding Israel views from archaeology. So he is combining multiple sources to put forward a view of history based on more than evidence from a single biased source.

 

[Harel13]

You a missing a huge chunk of history. The Assyrian invasions of Israel started in 730 BCE and was completed in 720-717 BCE (Siege holdouts). Babylon replaced Assyria during the early 600s. Judah was conquered completely 586 BCE. The 10 tribes were supposedly removed between 730-710.

How am I missing a huge chunk of history? My question was about @sooda's claim that Judeans hated Galileeans in the time of Jesus. The video you brought, while, again, interesting, didn't discuss this. It discussed previous animosity (without basis, though! A lot of "must have" and stuff), but never was there a claim that either side considered the other "half-breeds" (what does that even mean in Jewish terms?). The video you brought has Finkelstein talking about events that transpired around the eighth century bce.

 

[Harel13]

So he is combining multiple sources to put forward a view of history based on more than evidence from a single biased source.

Unfortunately he didn't really bring any sources, so at this point it remains an odd theory and nothing more.

 

[Shad]

How am I missing a huge chunk of history? My question was about @sooda's claim that Judeans hated Galileeans in the time of Jesus.

"this hate between Northern Israel and Southern Israel continued for the next 700 or so years"

That was a point I was addressing. The North was gone within two centuries.

The Galileans were seen as less than observant Jews while being at odds with the Pharisees both religiously and politically. The Galileans were a major source of rebel fighters against Rome which put the area at odds with the semi-autonomous dynasties administrating the area for Rome. Galilee had been annexed in 103 BCE by the Hasmonean dynasty.

Keep in mind a lot of history is from the viewpoint of the upper classes. So when people uses terms like X and Y as a political entity it represent the powerful rather than the masses. The level of communication and indoctrination is very hard to address as the masses didn't often write. There a multiple peaks period and sources to see if a population has a greater motivation than survival.

The video you brought, while, again, interesting, didn't discuss this. It discussed previous animosity (without basis, though! A lot of "must have" and stuff),

A lot of history is like that.

never was there a claim that either side considered the other "half-breeds" (what does that even mean in Jewish terms?).

Matrilineality

The video you brought has Finkelstein talking about events that transpired around the eighth century bce.

Yes which is a century after the division.

You are missing point regarding development. Development leads to stability and greater government centralization. Around 14:00 he talks immigration with cultural and religious differences. He brings up integration and reform hypothesizes. He makes direct references which you can look up. He brought up shires and religious sites. He is horrible at providing open citations. You have to listen to specific points and look each up.

 

[Harel13]

He is horrible at providing open citations.

Yeah, I see that now.

You have to listen to specific points and look each up.

I wouldn't know where to even begin. I'm not an expert.

Matrilineality

Meaning that only the mothers were Jewish?

this hate between Northern Israel and Southern Israel continued for the next 700 or so years"

Okay, I missed that.

The North was gone within two centuries

Yes, I know that. But then it was re-settled by returning Judeans.

The Galileans were seen as less than observant Jews while being at odds with the Pharisees both religiously and politically

Which brings me back to my original question: Source?

 

[sooda]

How am I missing a huge chunk of history? My question was about @sooda's claim that Judeans hated Galileeans in the time of Jesus. The video you brought, while, again, interesting, didn't discuss this. It discussed previous animosity (without basis, though! A lot of "must have" and stuff), but never was there a claim that either side considered the other "half-breeds" (what does that even mean in Jewish terms?). The video you brought has Finkelstein talking about events that transpired around the eighth century bce.

Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria around 700 BC.

 

[Harel13]

Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria around 700 BC.

From this I infer that you mean that you believe that these "half-breeds" were half-Arabs and half-Jewish. Is Samaria considered the Galilee?

 

[sooda]

From this I infer that you mean that you believe that these "half-breeds" were half-Arabs and half-Jewish. Is Samaria considered the Galilee?

Remember when they decided to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem they rejected the help of the Samarians.

Israel was divided into three regions back then. Judea was in the south and included Jerusalem; north of Judea was Samaria; and north of Samaria was the region of Galilee, which included the Sea of Galilee.
Judea - Bible Verse Study
www.bibleversestudy.com/johngospel/john3-judea.htm


Galilee, Samaria, and Judea in the First Century CE
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/galilee-samaria-and-judea-in-the-first-century-ce

• 1. NOW Phoenicia and Syria encompass about the Galilees, which are two,...
  2. These two Galilees, of so great largeness, and encompassed with so many nations of foreigners,...
  3. In short, if any one will suppose that Galilee is inferior to Perea in magnitude,...