האם הנוצרים גרמו שפיכות דמים לעם היהודי? כן, אך רק במובן שאנשים השתמשו בשמו של ישוע, אך מעולם לא באמת ייצגו אותו או פעלו מטעמו. ישוע אמר אתם תלמידים שלי אם אתם שומרים מצוותי”. הוא אף פעם לא לימד להרוג או לרדוף את היהודים, אלא את ההיפך הגמור, הוא לימד להפנות את הלחי השנייה ואפילו לאהוב את אויבינו. אם כך, האנשים האלה, הקוראים לעצמם נוצרים או המזהים את עצמם עם הכנסייה, אינם מאמינים אמיתיים או תלמידיו של המשיח. תלמיד אמיתי של ישוע דוחה דברים אנטישמיות כגון האינקוויזיציה, מסעי הצלב, הפוגרומים והשואה. אלו פשעי שנאה המהווים עלבון לנצרות האמיתית. פעולות אלה יצאו לפועל בעקבות מוסדות בעלי אוריינטציה דתית ופוליטית מושחתות. לפעמים ה’כנסייה’ המזויפת אפילו הרגה ככל הנראה מאמינים אמיתיים בישוע, אשר סירבה ללכת בעקבות המסורות שלהם, כיוון שהכנסייה הרגה יהודים רבים.
גם השואה אינה הייתה תנועה נוצרית, ולמעשה מתוך האחד עשר מיליון שמתו ברצח העם האכזר היו גם בערך 3 מיליון פולנים נוצרים שמתו אף הם. גם כן, בזמן השואה, היו נוצרים שעקב האהבה בליבם עזרו ליהודים בזמן הטרגדיה הנוראה הזו. ארצות שהיו תחת השפעה פרוטסטנטית כמו נורבגיה ודנמרק, נלחמו על מנת להציל את היהודים.
גם כיום ישנה מלחמה, אך הנוצרים הם לא על קו החזית, אלא הקבוצות האינטי-מיסיונריות. ישנה רדיפה בישראל אחרי יהודים שמאמינים ישוע והולכים בדרכיו, ופעמים רבות הם מוטרדים או מופלים לרעה למרות שהם אזרחים במדינת ישראל וגרים במדינה דמוקרטית. למרות ‘חוק השבות’ שנחנך בשנת 1989, יהודי שמצהיר שהוא מאמין בישוע, אינו יכול לעשות עלייה לארץ ישראל. אפילו במעגלים מסוימים, ישנם יהודים שמקללים את היהודים המשיחיים שמאמינים בישוע, 3 פעמים ביום.
בבקשה, אל תפרשו את המאמר הזה כהתקפה על אומת ישראל או האנשים היהודים, אותם אני אוהב בכל ליבי, אלא בתור דרך להראות בה תמיד יש שני צדדים לכל סיפור. הדבר האירוני ביותר הוא שמנקודת מבט יהודית, ראש הממשלה של ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, אומר שהחברים הכי טובים והתומכים הגדולים ביותר של ישראל הם הנוצרים האוונגליסטים. ישנם אין ספור נוצרים שעומדים לצד ישראל ותומכים בה. ישנם תוכניות יהודיות, כמו של הרבי אקשטיין “על כנפי נשרים” , בה הוא מעודד את תמיכת הנוצרים לעזור ליהודים מיואשים לעשות עלייה לישראל. ישנן קבוצות בתוך ישראל, כמו “גשרים למען השלום” שמספקים עזרה הומניטארית בלי לדרוש דבר בתמורה.
לסיכום, מאמינים אמיתיים אוהבים את העם היהודי. זה חשוב לזכור ששום מנהיג קהילה בעבר לא הגן על העובדה או טען שצריך להשמיד את העם היהודי. עמדת הכנסיות האנטי יהודיות לא עמדה בדמיון לגזעניות האנטישמית של היטלר, והשואה בעצמה נחשבת למעשה אנטי-נוצרי, ונוצרים אמיתיים מתאבלים על האירוע הזה. בסופו של דבר, נוצרים אמיתיים היו אלו שעזרו ליהודים ולא אלו שהתקיפו אותם או צדו אותם.
ישוע הוא לא דת קתולית רומאית. המונח קתולי, בהקשר לנצרות, אף פעם לא בא לידי ביטוי על ידי ישוע או שנים עשר השליחים שלו, אשר היו אלו האחראיים לכתיבת הברית החדשה.
ניתן לומר שישוע הוא קתולי באותה מידה שהאפיפיור הוא יהודי. כפי שאתם רואים, זה לא הגיוני להציג את זהותו של ישוע על ידי מושגים, שהוא בעצמו אפילו לא יזם.
This modern Islamic revivalist movement is claiming the ability to restore and revitalize Islam to its pristine state. It is also committed to bring in the “end times” by which all people are to be assimilated and brought into allegiance or submission with Islam.
This group, along with other Sufi mystical cults, have attempted to inaugurate such an era which would bring forth the enlightenment of Islam to all the world which has led some of these groups to be missionary oriented in gaining converts.
Its founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad seems to have spearheaded this movement as an anti-missionary response towards Christianity perceiving that Islam was on the decline due to the growth of Christendom which in turn may have been the reason why he took a less radical or more liberal view concerning Islamic doctrine. Accordingly it may be that He made such eschatological claims as being a manifestation of Muhammad, Jesus, Mahdi and even Krishna to gain more of a following to his reformed Islamic ideology. However I am not for sure how he was going to convince an unite Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Christians considering these groups are exclusive in their views and also incorporate other religions as well since he seemed to focus on just these few religious figures. It seems plausible that these groups were initially targeted considering this was his limited range of influence at the time given his geographical location.
Furthermore as time progressed His role or identity seemed to advance which at first he saw himself as the renewer of the faith or the Mujaddid and then a little latter he proclaimed himself to being a Messiah/Mahdi figure which lastly led to his self proclamation as a prophet. Yet the Lahore Ahmadiyya group has rejected his claims as a prophet, perhaps because of persecution, by stating that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s remarks were intended to be interpreted in an allegorical sense but based on his actions and words it is consistent to believe as do the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Qadiyanis/Qadianis that he actually saw himself as a prophet which is a real problem with Orthodox Islam which only recognizes the prophet Muhammad as the last prophet. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s way around this controversy was to state that Muhammad’s prophethood was final in his law bearing influence as a legislative prophet but based on the revisional or abrogated views espoused by Ghulam Ahmad regarding the Quran I believe his position on forming “no new book or law” is questionable. Moreover to emphasize his position of importance he went as far to declare anyone who did not accept his prophethood as a Kafir or an unbeliever which ironically he also states that if anyone considers someone else a Kafir then he is one himself which was self fulfilled when he pronounced Mirza Ahmad Baig a kafir or infidel for not wedding his eldest daughter to him.
He also claimed divine inspiration from Allah on his view points but in reality he was influenced by another Indian reformer Sayyid Ahmad Khan which included such ideas as Jesus dying a natural death and jihad of the pen replacing jihad of the sword and therefore some of his claims were only borrowed and not original to the movement. These adopted views from Syed Ahmed Khan challenged traditional Islamic views of jihadist ideology as it applies to holy war or a literal fight against the infidel which in turn is really an attack on the teachings of the Quran along with questioning Muhammad’s actions which were not always defensive concerning his military campaigns. The concept of jihad as just being an inner struggle between good and evil is an oversimplification and a blatant oversight to historical Islam. Jihad has both internal/ spiritual applications as well as an outward physical manifestation and when you externalize the implications of this philosophy as fighting the enemy by demonizing the infidel then it’s not to difficult to see a correlation as dominating others with the advancement of Islamic religion. So to resort to fighting the enemy with the pen or the mouth instead of the sword is something unique to this revisionist view and does not represent historic Islamic values or teachings. In defense of this movement I wholeheartedly agree with this position of taking a non violent or passive approach to Islam even though it is not a true representation of Orthodoxy in that the adoption of these new practices and beliefs makes this sect so controversial among traditional Muslims. Islam has taken a position to conquer in obtaining world dominion and if need be to use the sword in bringing people into submission by pressuring conversions through various methods of persuasion and persecution in order to conform to Islamic rule and this is still practiced today in more predominantly Muslim nations. I have written another post about violence in Islam which confirms Islam’s role in advocating violence as part of jihad or holy war.
Also contrary to the position of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at I disagree that Islam as a whole can be reformed through the philosophy of its community. How can you recover something that was not lost to begin with? A reformation would mean restoring a belief system to its original position which is a challenge to the abrogated verses of the Quran which support military jihad. Therefore it would seem to be blasphemous to change or override these inspirational and authoritative Quranic passages which is said to be a perfect model and representation of the will of Allah. From a predominantly Muslim worldview the Koran is not to be edited for another revision and to take a varied view of changing just one point of the Quran is to denounce the faith and to call into question all of the Quran. Anyway even if the Quran could be abrogated again to assume its pre-violent stance; by what authority does anyone have to question the finality of the prophethood of Mohammed or to stand in a direct relationship with Allah to receive new revelation which again affirms Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s position as a prophet? Also regarding the concept of obtaining peace; if the verses of the Qur’an can be abrogated back to a non-violent position then what guarantees that it will not undergo another abrogation in returning to its violent nature especially if the world does not conform to Islamic principle?
Even with the limited reforms of this fringe group this doesn’t necessitate that the whole or universalist view of this movement will ever be realized or obtained in changing the religious landscape of the world; let alone mainstream Islam. Moreover the expectancies of this movement to usher in growth and peace remains to be challenged as well because this last century has been the bloodiest to date in which the Islamic world has played its role in attributing to the bloodshed by heaping up it masses of victims even among its own factions. Recently we have even seen the phenomena of what is termed the “Arab Spring” of which these people who are oppressed under these Muslim dominant nations are rising up in revolution and protest with violence over these Islamic regimes and countries which have not fostered peace but rather oppression of their own people.
Perhaps this group sees their participation as just a gradual or evolutionary progression or process which will become more evident with time. However where is the evidence of this and based on Mirza Ghulam Hazrat Amad’s influence there is no discernible sign for tolerance in synthesizing others into the Islamic fold in bringing forth any kind of final triumph or dispensation for mankind which will be marked with love and peace under the banner of Islam. Moreover acts of hatred and terrorism has not subsided even from the standpoint of the modernity of globalization through the invention of technology and the information age. There is still not enough evidence to see adequate progress now or perhaps ever in ushering in a utopian Islamic New World Order.
Also radical Islam still makes up roughly 10% of the Islamic population which may be as high as 160 million adherents and even if the majority of the nominal non-violent Muslims would like to see a more peaceful demonstration of this non-Mohammedan expression of faith it would still fail in its plight by being subservient to the compliancy and control of these orthodox believers in being under this fearful and intimidating religion. Additionally as long as the jihadist view prevails in equating power and might equals right due to their successes; this only serves to confirm and entrench them in maintaining this position as a divine ordination under the sovereign and permissive allowances of Allah. In the final analysis this pacifist group will be dealt with in the same way in which Islam has suppressed and exterminated other nonviolent or non-retaliatory groups including Christianity who has predominantly taken a non combative approach by loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. After all the Ahmadis know this first hand due to the persecution and the pressure they feel to conform and return to mainstream Islam because they are not considered apart of the Islamic brotherhood and are regarded as being non Muslim in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
I sympathize with the Ahmaddiya’s positions and I hope they succeed as far as their non violent demonstrations are concerned however I remain skeptical that this group will achieve its objective especially in these Muslim dominant nations which is where this philosophy needs to be adopted the most. Also even though this offshoot has been persecuted as an enemy of Islam in being labeled as heretics and apostates; there is still a resistance for Ahmadis to completely break off their affections with Islam even though Muslims dislike and disown them? This reminds me of a battered wife who is a codependent and is unwilling to leave the marriage by making excuses for her abusive spouse.
Now regarding some of the controversial matters which sets Mirza Ghulam Ahmad apart from Islam is concerning the literal return of Christ which according to Islamic sources will happen at the end of the age but Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims that this is only allegorical in nature and that he is the personification of this final advent of Christ. How likely is all of this considering Christendom has not accepted him as their Messiah neither has the Muslim world received him as the Mahdi nor do the majority of Hindus believe him to be the avatar or divine incarnation of Krishna. In order for there to be a massive following there would have to be an acceptance of his propositions and influence by which he has not even left a faint impression on the hearts of these followers of other world religions thus this small movement is just a subculture primarily made up of disgruntled Muslims.
Another point of contention has to do with the death of Christ which Islam claims that Jesus really never suffered on the cross as this was an illusion which calls to question the nature of Allah to lie and be deceitful and sounds more akin to the beliefs of Gnosticism. However Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adopted a dated an alternative view which was popular during his time among the critics of Christianity which was the swoon theory which states that Jesus recovered from his death by defying a terminal outcome in surviving a brutal/horrific scourging and crucifixion from trained and experienced executioners. Today the swoon theory is a “faded” fad that has no real following among even critical scholars as a resuscitation is virtually impossible. Muslims will not admit to the death of Jesus and regard it as a defeat of God yet from a biblical and scriptural perspective this whole idea is centered on the victory of the Resurrection which culminates in a triumphal procession of Christ and the redeemed community of believers as being a glorious display of God’s justice and mercy. I have written a couple of posts about this issue which helps confirm this viewpoint.
However on the other hand this whole fabrication plays into the Indian folklore of believing that Jesus recovered and lived out the rest of his life in seeking out the lost tribes of Israel in Kashmir. For Jesus to survive this death defying feat and then settle in India to focus his outreach to Diaspora Jews has no basis and it has similarities to the Davinci Code and the Gnostic Gospels of Jesus wandering around other parts of the world or Mormonism which believes that Jesus went to America to preach to Native Americans who were supposedly the lost tribes of Israel. The Diaspora of the Jews was great and vast covering much of the world and even though Jews migrated to India there is no real proof that I am aware of which localizes them to this region during the time of Christ. If anything Northern Israel would have been predominantly integrated into the dominant and conquering countries of some of these foreign kingdoms which would have been the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes/Persians and Greeks. Even though some these nations may have extended their rule to India does not mean that these tribes were necessarily prevalent there.
Another objection to the beliefs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Islam is that Jesus was just recognized as one of the Old Testament prophets as being under the law of Moses which in part is true but more than a prophet His work and ministry was transitional in bringing in a New Age or Covenant under the rule of His messiahship as being Lord, King and Priest. Again these messianic expectations are pre-Christian in origin and have there basis in the Old Testament scriptures of which the Jews were the stewards and caretakers of apart from any kind of Christian influence in taking liberties to corrupt or alter the text to fit their messianic expectations. I have written a post about this which helps affirm Jesus’ role as the Messiah as bringing in a New Era and dispensation.
To further distinguish Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as being a “prophet” he did make some “prophecies” and according to the bible the true test of a prophet is a result of whether or not the prophecies are fulfilled or come to pass otherwise the individual was determined to be a “false prophet”. However several of Ghulam Ahmads’ prophecies are very questionable and instead of his followers taking responsibility for this matter they passed them off as unfulfilled or partially fulfilled, conditional or provisional and allegorical. These followers have made excuses for the failed prophecies of their leader such as the prophetic utterances related to Abdullah Atham, a promised son, Mohammadi Begum, plague of Qadian and the prayer dual of Mulvi Sana Ullah Amritsari.
Moreover even some of his own family members renounced his fraudulent claims as a prophet which included his first wife who divorcing him over the matter. Therefore those who were the closest to him saw through this facade in claiming to be a prophet and to overlook this matter is a dishonest evaluation of the facts.
Furthermore the whole idea of Mirza Ghulam being the Messiah was prophesied from the lips of Jesus as occurring in the last days but not with the outcome of which this group would expect.
Mt:24-23-25
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
The Messiah’s return will be prefaced by his visible appearance and has nothing to do with solar and lunar eclipses that supposedly proceeded Ghulam Ahmad’s calling.
Mt:24:30
30 “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
In summary Ghulam Ahmad saw his calling to bring forth a universal and peaceful/ loving solution to religion by presenting a reformed version of Islam to the world community and so far the majority has not bought into the act. Furthermore Islam has failed to be the most populous religion to date even though it presently has surpassed the growth rate of all religions by means of childbirth and the suppression of variant religious expressions but not through the efforts of a reformation.
Also according to the words of Jesus which has come to pass there have been many Messiah figures from the time of Christ onward and for Ghulam Ahmad to claim this title is really a shortfall to the expectations of fulfilling this end time role as Messiah. Moreover to think that he could accomplish what Mohammad could not do in bringing about a “golden age” for Islam is to challenge and exalt himself above the prophet Muhammed himself which is unthinkable for a Muslim.
In conclusion your desire to obtain peace and still maintain the worship of God can be accomplished but not through the religion of Islam. Have you ever noticed that the word “love” is strangely absent from describing the nature or character of Allah and yet deep within the moral fabric of our soul and conscious we know instinctively that this behavior is how we should properly relate to others as verified through a guilty conscious when we fail to behave as such. We see the beauty of love expressed through the best of human relationships and for there not to be any mention of that verb alongside of Allah’s name as a reflection of his superior quality is unfathomable considering we are his creation and therefore this is unacceptable in trying to make sense of Islamic theology. Anyway these attributes which you find necessary and desirous are complimentary to the teachings of Christianity in how we relate in love towards others which even includes our adversaries. I would encourage you to read the gospels and discover for yourself who the historical Jesus is apart from the Islamic or Ahmaddiya Jesus.
Of the first principles of life which are intrinsic to our being; it is logical to conclude that peace and love is a much higher calling to life then the degeneration of a wicked and evil society which is dominated by violence. Jesus came as the Prince of Peace in giving us peace with God and with one another and the fruit of his ministry lives on in the life of his believers as evidenced by the vast and global humanitarian efforts including the original establishment of hospitals and orphanages. Christianity attempts to proliferate life not eradicate it. So to desire Christian ethics to conform to Islamic ideology is nonsensical as it tries to fit a square peg in a round hole. So for the Ahmadis to affirm the Christian values of love, peace, sympathy and forgiveness is to give more authority to the biblical Jesus then what you are giving to the Quran. To break with traditional Islam is the first big step towards change and if you can muster the courage to walk away and face rejection from Islamic society then I would ask if you would consider walking a little further down the road in your pursuit of peace.
Finally Ghulam Ahmad has represented himself as a false messiah or Dajjal to the Christian and for the Muslim he is the “Misguided One” not the Al Mahdi. This failure to bring about the promise of peace has been unsuccessful even within the first generation of his proclamation as his own movement was divided, splintered and fractured over the doctrinal disputes and succession so in essence what hope is their for a movement to set the standard of peace on the world stage when it actors can not even agree to the script and the role play?
My friend I hope you don’t receive this message as way to bring harm or shame to you. I apologize if you perceive violence through my words. I understand that you are perhaps already suffering for your beliefs and I would do nothing unnecessarily to hurt you or offend you in any way. I have labored my point merely out of a concern for your immortal soul and I pray that this post will awaken your heart to the false and exaggerated claims of this movement. I appreciate your pursuit of peace and love but what I question is the source by which you have claimed to obtain it. God bless.
John 16:33
33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
John 14:27
27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices/ J. Gordon Melton, Martin Baumann, editors; Todd M. Johnson, World Religious Statistics; Donald Wiebe, Introduction-2nd ed., Copyright 2010 by ABC-CLIO, LLC. Reproduced with permission of ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA.
Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, copyright 2005 Thomson Gale a part of The Thomson Corporation, Lindsay Jones Editor in Chief, Vol.1, pgs.200-201, Yohanan Friedmann
Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, copyright 2005 Thomson Gale a part of The Thomson Corporation, Lindsay Jones Editor in Chief, Vol.7, pg.4573, Fazlur Rahman
Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, copyright 2005 Thomson Gale a part of The Thomson Corporation, Lindsay Jones Editor in Chief, Vol.10, pg.6648, Mark Juergensmeyer
Les premiers croyants Juifs se considéraient comme des disciples de Jésus. D’autres se réfèrent à eux comme ceux qui appartenaient à la «Voie» ainsi que la secte Nazaréenne.
Les disciples de Jésus ont d’abord été appelé Chrétiens d’Antioche. Cette église avait un mélange des deux croyants Gentils et Juifs.
Le mot Chrétien peut avoir été utilisé comme un mot d’argot par les autres comme un moyen de protestation et a été adopté à un moment donné comme un titre d’identité acceptable. Un Chrétien est tout simplement celui qui est un adhérent à Christ, ainsi par conséquent, il ne pouvait pas être appliqué au Christ Lui-même.
Ce qui est intéressant à propos de ce mot c’est que l’équivalent hébreu pour le mot grec Christ (Christianos) est le Messie. Ce mot est utilisé aujourd’hui en se référant aux croyants Juifs en Jésus en tant que Juifs Messianiques.
Ces Juifs Messianiques utilisent simplement le concept hébreu du mot grec. Le mot lui-même a des racines Juives qui sont ancrées dans la culture Hébraïque. Puisque le mot a été utilisé pour se référer à ceux qui sont disciples de Jésus ou Yeshoua comme leur Messie alors techniquement ce même mot pourrait aussi renvoyer à un groupe ou une personne qui suivrait une identité de Messie. Ainsi donc être Chrétien par cette définition classerait ceux qui sont les praticiens du Judaïsme Orthodoxe comme Messianiques même, car ils croient en une figure Messianique potentiel. Il suffit de regarder les Loubavitchs qui ont formulé des allégations récentes de leur Rebbe en appliquant ce titre.
Vous pouvez mépriser le mot en raison de l’association vous lui avez donné comme étant applicable à ceux qui suivent Jésus, mais en se contentant de mépriser le mot ou le concept du mot méprise la culture Juive dans laquelle le mot a été dérivé et a donné naissance.
Est-ce l’association gentilice du mot Chrétien que vous détestez ou est-ce Yeshoua le Messie Juif que vous rejetez? Faites-moi une faveur et lisez Isaïe 52:13 – 53 et voyez si cela a été votre réaction ou votre vrai motif concernant le Messie Juif Yeshoua.
Un aperçu de Jésus à partir du Tanakh se trouve dans le livre du prophète Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27 mentionne :¨Soixante -dix semaines ont été fixées sur ton peuple et sur ta ville sainte, pour faire cesser les transgressions et mettre fin aux péchés, pour expier l’iniquité et amener la justice éternelle, pour sceller la vision et le prophète, et pour oindre le Saint des saints.
Sache le donc, et comprends! Depuis le moment où la parole a annoncé que Jérusalem sera rebatie jusqu’à l’Oint, au Conducteur, il y a sept semaines, dans soixante-deux semaines, les places et les fossés seront rétablis, mais en des temps fâcheux. Après les soixante-deux semaines, un Oint sera retranché, et il n’aura pas de successeur. Le peuple d’un chef qui viendra détruira la ville et le sanctuaire, et sa fin arrivera comme par une inondation; il est arrêté que les dévastations dureront jusqu’au terme de la guerre. Il fera une solide alliance avec plusieurs pour une semaine, et durant la moitié de la semaine il fera cesser le sacrifice et l’offrande; le dévastateur commettra les choses les plus abominables, jusqu’à ce que la ruine et ce qui a été résolu fondent sur le dévastateur.¨
Il y a eu beaucoup de discussions sur la façon de comprendre et d’appliquer une interprétation de ce texte et la formule mathématique dans la datation de ces Soixante-dix »Sept” de Daniel. Pourtant, en dépit de tout cela on peut encore recueillir des informations pertinentes dans l’application de la compréhension de l’Ecriture en ce qui concerne le Messie ou le Machiah l’ “Oint”.
Jésus était un personnage historique qui a occupé un certain endroit géographique à un moment précis dans le temps dans l’histoire. Ce n’est pas contesté ou refusé, même parmi les historiens laïques. Il a également vécu et interagi au sein de la communauté Juive en ce qui concerne le temple Juif à Jérusalem. Nous le retrouvons à 12 ans discutant des questions avec les docteurs de la loi dans l’enceinte du temple, puis à la fin de sa vie lors de son dernier souffle, Il a déclaré concernant son œuvre rédemptrice comme étant “Terminée”, puis le voile au sein du temple se déchira. La conclusion est que Jésus a existé à l’époque du temple et Il prophétisa à l’événement futur du jugement imminent sur Jérusalem, dans laquelle la ville et le temple seraient détruits, ce qui s’est passé en 70 après JC, lorsque les Romains ont saccagé la ville . Cette destruction n’a pas eu lieu au cours de la vie de Jésus, mais 40 ans après sa mort. Vous pouvez lire à ce sujet dans Matthieu 23:37 s’étendant dans le chapitre 24.
Daniel 9:24 emploie des mots qui complètent et décrivent l’importance du règne de ¨l’Oint¨ou de l’inauguration de ses reines.
La datation des semaines est symbolique d’années qui est la façon dont il a été interprété par des ressources Chrétiennes et Juives. Donc, cette parole prophétique nous aurait amené directement à l’époque que Yeshoua ou Jésus a vécu sur la terre.
Même le célèbre commentateur Juif Rashi qui vivait autour du 11ème siècle et qui est respecté en tant que commentateur abord et avant tout du Judaïsme sur le Talmud a appliqué cette interprétation à la même période de temps, mais à la mauvaise personne. Il a vu Hérode Agrippa comme l’oint plutôt que Jésus.
En conclusion qui d’autre dans l’histoire existait comme une figure Messianique qui a été étiqueté “Roi des Juifs” et il est mort ou retranché juste avant la destruction de la ville et du temple qui jusqu’à ce jour même n’a pas été reconstruit ou restauré?
