The Crucifixion - comparison between Christian and Islamic views

Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection were witnessed by His own disciples. The Bible is to record down what they had witnesses as direct eye-witnesses. And these direct eye-witnesses of Jesus are willing to martyr their own lives to back up what is said and claimed.

Mohammed was only born like 500 years later so whatever he can say is thus unverifiable single account hearsay. It is more or less about what you will say about a figure existed 500 years ago. You can't present any first handed information about such a figure other than hearsay you can acquire.
 
Mohammed was only born like 500 years later so whatever he can say is thus unverifiable single account hearsay.

The historical gap between Moses and Jesus is twice as large. So whatever Jesus said about Moses is double the hearsay?
 
Last edited:
The historical gap between Moses and Jesus is twice as large. So whatever Jesus said about Moses is double the hearsay?

Since when Jesus bears witnessing for Moses? Obviously you are confused about what human witnessing is and how its validity should be examined.
 
Last edited:
According to Courage, apparently the further (farther? I can never remember which) one goes back the more accurate is. So Moses would be twice as accurate as Christ following this logic.

It's about the validity of human witnessing. You can't witness anything about a figure living 500 years ago.
 
Since when Jesus bears witnessing for Moses?

For example, baby Moses escaped from pharaoh's decree, which issued the death of every boy child born among the Hebrews. As the new Moses, Jesus went through the same ordeal with Herod (Exodus 1.15-16; Matthew 2.16). The Gospel of Matthew provides many similar examples (Matthew 1-7). Since Jesus' life is modeled after the life of Moses, for followers of Christ his life "bears witness" or "provides evidence for" events in the life of the historical Moses.

The Gospel of Mark claims Jesus, the "prophet of whom Moses spoke", not only talked with Moses, but saw him too (Mark 9.4). We could call this an "eye-witness" account of Moses? Jesus not only knows what he knows about Moses from scripture, but he knows what he knows about Moses from whatever Moses told him face-to-face. Too bad the conversation in Mark 9.4 isn't recorded. Jesus knows Moses so well he tells some Jewish audiences their "accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope" (John 5.45). Perhaps Moses was telling Jesus about the heart condition of some of his followers when they were "talking" in Mark 9.4? Ouch!

Many other great prophets (including Muhammad) have claimed to have met previous prophets, by the way. If this is true, Muhammad had an eye-witness account of Christ too. Even after the death of an individual in the ancient world, eye-witness accounts were still plausible, because Paul himself said Christ "appeared also to me" (1 Corinthians 15.9) and Moses and Elijah still appeared to prophets (Mark 9.4). Therefore, as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter if Muhammad were born 100,000 years after Christ, God can still communicate with his vessels, and prophets can still appear to God's chosen ones.
 
Last edited:
According to Courage, apparently the further (farther? I can never remember which) one goes back the more accurate is. So Moses would be twice as accurate as Christ following this logic.

I've never thought about it that way before. Adam then would be the most accurate . . .
 
Last edited:
Why couldn't humans witness anything 500 years ago? If they couldn't, how could humans witness something from 500 years before that. I would like to understand your logic. Could you please explain?
How are you reading what he/she is writing so off!? It's like you're purposefully misreading him/her. (I know you're not)
 
Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection were witnessed by His own disciples.

Before the crucifixion "some" believed Jesus was already a resurrected prophet. They believed they "witnessed" John the Baptist's resurrection. Who were these believers? Don't know. Early Jewish Christians? Former disciples of John the Baptist? "Some were saying, 'John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.' But others said, 'It is Elijah.' And others said, 'It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.' But when Herod heard of it, he said, 'John, whom I beheaded, has been raised" (Mark 6.14-16). "Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that I am?' And they answered him, 'John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets" (Mark 8.27-28).

What does it mean to "witness" Jesus' resurrection? The Gospel of Mark reports the meaning wasn't so obvious: "As they were coming down from the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean" (Mark 9.9-10). Why would these Jews need to question its meaning? Surely the doctrine was well-known?
 
Last edited:
Lol....difference between christian and Islamic views on crucifixion is the same as the difference between christian and islamic views on Mohammed (pbuh) being the final prophet or a prophet at all.

Is this a surprise to any?
 
Why would these Jews need to question its meaning? Surely the doctrine was well-known?
Well as you say, it was well-known in the context of Elijah come back, for example.

Whether this was a belief in the reincarnation of Elijah, or the resurrection of Elijah, is not so clear. Neither term is used, as far as I know, in contemporary texts. A Hindu/Buddhist view of reincarnation only came up in the 20th century. More likely is the idea that the Spirit of God who moves the Prophets moves in Jesus — remember the prophets were seen and saw themselves as oracles, not avatars.

So what the texts highlights is the disciples were aware that Jesus was talking about something else, not the traditional views ...

Elijah was taken up "into heaven" (2 Kings 2:1) and Enoch "... walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him." (Genesis 5:24) — so both speak of some form of resurrection and ascension, yet Christ said: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

So we should allow that Christ gave 'certain' instructions to His disciples which, at face value, might well appear to contradict the Scriptures. Certainly with regard to Himself. In my view He taught some very challenging things, which didn't come to light until John's gospel, which was written as a supplementary commentary to the 'common' understanding founded on the Synoptic texts. John readily admits the disciples were 'in the dark' about a lot of things, not the least being the Resurrection.
 
Elijah was taken up "into heaven" (2 Kings 2:1) and Enoch "... walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him." (Genesis 5:24) — so both speak of some form of resurrection and ascension

Hi Thomas,

And Moses was "buried" (Deut. 34.6), yet he "appeared" to Christ and his disciples (Mark 9.4). I think Moses appeared because the same attributes of Moses appeared in another person that got the scriptures the way Christ understood them. Luke adds a lot of extra details, claiming they discussed Christ's departure. Mark and Matthew report they talked. Peter then said "let us make three tents". Luke adds Peter said that after he was fully awake from a heavy sleep. It was after this episode and Christ's mention of his resurrection we find the disciples "questioning what this rising of the dead could mean". Christ gives them an appointed time to tell others about what they had seen.

Suppose nonbelievers were present with the disciples in Mark 9.4 because they too happened to be on the same mountain at the same time. Mark informs us nonbelievers "may indeed see but not perceive" (Mark 4:12). What would they "see" but "not perceive" if they were present? Mark says: "But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him" (Mark 9.13). They didn't know Elijah was present. If nonbelievers were present they wouldn't perceive the attributes of Elijah or Moses reflected in the individuals on the mountain: they would have seen two ordinary people; they wouldn't have "witnessed" any form of resurrection! Perhaps not just ordinary, but heretical. After all, Luke says they were discussing Christ's departure. Mark may have had something else in mind in their discussion or maybe additional discussions. No doubt Luke believes this departure was "according to the scriptures". That's something those adhering to alternative Jewish interpretations never acknowledged. And these alternative Jewish interpretations were mainstream during that time period, not the views of Jesus' and John the Baptist's disciples. Perhaps this is one reason why they were told to keep what they saw a secret.

In my view He taught some very challenging things, which didn't come to light until John's gospel, which was written as a supplementary commentary to the 'common' understanding founded on the Synoptic texts. John readily admits the disciples were 'in the dark' about a lot of things, not the least being the Resurrection.

According to Courage, the disciples witnessed Christ's resurrection. Hard to see how witnessing a resurrection is possible if they didn't understand Christ's doctrine of resurrection. John is usually dated between AD 90-110, which was decades after the disciples passed away. Peter supposedly died in the late 60s.
 
Last edited:
Hi Ahanu —

And Moses was "buried" (Deut. 34.6), yet he "appeared" to Christ and his disciples (Mark 9.4). I think Moses appeared because the same attributes of Moses appeared in another person that got the scriptures the way Christ understood them.
Interesting.

St Maximos sees Moses as signifying the Law, and Elijah the Prophets, so between them the totality of the Divine Revelation to Israel.

Suppose nonbelievers were present with the disciples. Mark informs us nonbelievers "may indeed see but not perceive" What would they "see" but "not perceive" if they were present?
They’d see what Christ revealed to them. In Luke 24 we have Christ walking with the disciples who do not recognise Him, until He reveals Himself. The same with Mary Magdalene, who spoke to the Risen Christ thinking He was the gardener, until He said her name … so we see what the Holy Spirit reveals in us, to us, through us … it’s an internal thing. It’s quite possible spectators nearby would have seen nothing at all.

It’s axiomatic in the NT that to see Christ is not simply a case of physically seeing. ‘Christ asks, who do men say that I am?’ and when Peter answers, Christ says he could only say that because it was revealed to him.

So in the ancient Traditions East and West, it’s the Holy Spirit dwelling in the soul that reveals Christ to use. Seeing Christ as the Son of God is a Trinitarian thing, a Trinitarian process. Without the Holy Spirit, we just see the man; human nature does not possess the faculties with which to ‘see’ the Transcendent.

Perhaps this is one reason why they were told to keep what they saw a secret.
Well in those days Christianity was very much a ‘Mystery’ practiced within a Jewish context. Also Jesus was telling His people to keep quiet about what He was teaching them, until the prophetic aspect had been fulfilled, because it was such a contentious message.

These ‘secret’ teachings were oral teaching to the Catechumen — regarding the Person of Christ and the Three Persons of the Trinity, the Sacraments, etc. They’re not stated explicitly in the texts because the texts were written to provide background information and support for the oral teaching.

According to Courage, the disciples witnessed Christ's resurrection.
They witness the Risen Christ after the Resurrection. The first inkling they had was the empty tomb, at which point only Mary Magdalene believed He had risen.

Hard to see how witnessing a resurrection is possible if they didn't understand Christ's doctrine of resurrection.
Harder to see how they could believe in bodily resurrection prior to the event. It’s evident that the disciples were often mystified by what Christ said. Easy to see how that would be interpreted as ‘I will die, but the spirit of my mission will live on’, but He was saying more than that.

John is quite honest. They never got it, until it happened, and even then it was difficult to get their heads round it …

Christ appears to the disciples who are in hiding. Understandable. The Boss has just been arrested, tortured and killed, and there’s little doubt that had they started preaching, they’d have been rounded up and arrested too. So they go into hiding. Then He appears … but they remain in hiding, because days later Thomas turns up and they tell him, but they’re still not out there.

John 20 has Christ appear 8 days after His first appearance to the disciples, to show Himself to Thomas.

John 21 opens some time later. The disciples are no longer in Jerusalem. Peter has gone home, and resumed his occupation, a fisherman. Some of the disciples are with him. What were they waiting for? Then Christ appears on the shore …

John is usually dated between AD 90-110, which was decades after the disciples passed away.
That’s the latest dating for John, up to 125AD. That’s the date of a written text which is the transmission of an oral teaching. The text could have been written in his lifetime. We know the disciples of John had no issue with the Gospel attributed to him, so we can take it at face value — his account of what happened.

Peter supposedly died in the late 60s.
And we reckon that Mark’s gospel is based on the catechetical teachings of Peter to his followers when he was under house arrest prior to his execution.
 
What, that the Johannine community had no issue with the Gospel of John? Because none of them spoke against it, they assert the essential message of John's Gospel.

Polycarp (b.69AD) and Papias (b.70AD) were both said to have heard John first-hand, which means John was probably around and preaching towards the end of the century — if he was young at the time of his journeys with Christ, he'd be about 20? So probably lived towards his 90s if not beyond.
 
Surely you mean no dissenting writings survived... I simply can't see how we would know no one spoke against, or that all were in agreement... Of course I am making a generalization that since nothing is 100% today...I doubt it was then...
 
Wil, I suspect your rebellious nature project conflict in histories every shadow :) I've missed this!
 
Back
Top