Barabbas126
Scribbled:
"... we (Muslims) have concluded and confirm a plain truth, which is that the Holy Bible, as we have seen, is man work, and not the word of Allah (S.W) in any way. Thus, Christians cannot present it as evidence for any of there creeds or events, including the crucifixion and the Atonement."
Where, pray-tell, did you (anybody) receive word concerning "Jesus", "the crucifixion" and "Atonement", -if not from the 'Holy Bible'?
How might you justify 'what you believe and claim to be false' (the Holy Bible) and then proceed to quote from the (false) Holy Bible something otherwise not found in the Holy Bible... without evidence, much less, proof.
You cite the Qur'an (written hundreds of years later) as 'evidence and/or proof'... but without justification or reference(s)... only that the (unproven) Holy Qur'an is the (real) 'Truth' in regards to "Jesus" (whom the Holy Qur'an author never saw or heard).
If the Holy Bible, in particular, the Holy Gospels and the New Testaments are in error, so be it, -Show me (and others) that I may see and evaluate for myself. Please, do Not show me Another 'Holy Book'... (the Holy Qur'an or even the Guru Granth Sahib) to point out 'errors', 'contradictions', 'incongruencies' and hyperbole in the Holy Gospels. I, for one, already know such matters... and, indeed even more that you failed to mention.
As for me, I am not so willing to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'... for there is a germ of 'truth' even in a lie.
Immanuel Kant once observed, "It is not the lie that matters, -rather, the intention behind it...". I would add, (the) Who is the lier?
It is not enough to merely point out the flaws of the Holy Gospels, -both the Holy Qur'an and the Guru Granth Sahib are not germane to the issue at hand, -that being the matter concerning "Jesus Christ" (of the Jews, Christians and, I daresay, Greeks.
I note that You 'note' "Barabbas"... yet, leave the subject rather abruptly...
I, on the other hand, hold my attention to "Barabbas" and explore His persona.
Admittedly, there is little-to-nothing written about this "notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist" (without evidence, much less, proof) and that no historian seems to 'notice' or comment upon.
"Jesus Barabbas", written in the original Holy Gospel (before canonization or, around 40-60 c. e.) according or attributed to Matthew (27:17), -but that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin translation of the same text (around 390 c. e.) and most of the subsequent translations thereafter... leaving us latter-day people with only "Barabbas" instead.
As you may know, 'Barabbas' is not a proper or surname per se' (anymore so that is "Christ"), -it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation (a title), -it is what He [Jesus] was called. It means: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in 'the Father of us all', or, 'God'. or 'Allah', if you will).
He [Jesus] Barabbas (the or a 'Son of God') was chosen, by the Jew to be released from prison and the death penalty... and, as it was so granted by Pontius Pilate.
On its face, does this make any 'sense'? Would Pilate actually 'free an insurrectionist'?
I doubt it. But, my 'doubt' is not about what would or did Pilate do... (what was done was done), -rather, was {Jesus] Barabbas (the man who was called 'Son of God) really "a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist"?
I have no reason to 'believe' that He was "a robber, murderer and insurrectionist" as the (yet) Christians inform us.
"Christ" (actually, Kristos) did not make 'his' ("if it be lawful to call him a man" as noted by Josephus) LITERAL 'appearance' until AFTER Saul of Tarsus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul's epiphany... some years After the "crucifixion" of 'the descendant of David and Jewish messiah'.
Therefore, No Jew, during the "crucifixion" ever knew or saw or even heard of "Christ".
I truly suspect that Muslims are correct in declaring that "Jesus Christ" was Not "crucified"... rather, it was another (look-a-like) man. Moreover, I have reason to suspect that that 'man' was actually Judas the Galilean (who rose up against the secular governance of Herod... and his sons)
Now, Why do I declare these outlandish things...?
...back to Kant's observation... 'motive' for the falsification of Jewish history by the (latter-day) 'Christians'.
It can truly be stated that Saul/Paul is the actual creator and founder of 'Christianity'
(not "Christ").
Why might Saul/Paul create/found a new religion???
Briefly, let us look to Saul's life and ancestry...
Saul of Tarsus is the namesake and descendant of the first 'anointed' king of the Jews... i.e. of the tribe of Benjamin.
King Saul, eventually, was rebuked by the Lord (for failing to anathematize Agag)... nevertheless retained leadership of the Army... he "fell upon his own sword", -ostensibly, to avoid being captured by the Philistines. This cowardly and sinful act brought everlasting shame and dishonor upon Saul's heirs and descendants... not to mention, forever barring any and all of his family and descendants from ascending the royal throne of kingship.
The 'anointment' of David, of the tribe of Judah, replaced Saul as the second king of the Jews.
King David was succeeded by the 'anointment' of his son, Solomon.
King Solomon was succeeded by his son
Rehoboam... however, the Prophet Shemaiah refused to 'anoint' Rehoboam. He was rebuked (along with the heretofore established 'theocracy' of his father and grandfather. Ten tribes rebuked him and established a parallel 'secular' government, -headed by Jeroboam instead.
That 'schism' among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of Herod (an Ideumean and convert Jew)...
Enter Judas the Galilean (or, at this time, his son)... riding into Jerusalem on an ass... come to re-establish the long since marginalized ancient 'theocracy' of his forefathers...
Young Saul of Tarsus, a flunked-out Pharisaic student (of Gamaliel), and temple thug... filled with hatred towards the 'descendants of David... and the Jewish messiah', resentment over his fallen and would-be status... plotted, day and night, to rid and obliterate the 'descendants of David and the Jewish 'messiah-ship'...
Looks to me like he succeeded.
Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.
