Thoughts on Incarnation

Thomas said:
Thank you.

I have a massive problem with a flat denial of the crucifixion, especially substitution theories (let alone conspiracies). Whatever way I look at it, I cannot see anything but a monstrous deception, and one that Christ Himself would have necessarily colluded in, unless it was against His will, and He was kept under house arrest somewhere ...

Nor can I see Islam, in all its wisdom, and with its high regard for Jesus, passing over such questions. I have asked for an answer, but none is forthcoming, nor can I find a Muslim commentary on that point.

The modern Muslim reading, which itself references traditional streams, makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

Let me just say:

1. The "Moslem" variant is on the face of it no issue but as you know, it is often used by white supremacists, neo-nazis and K.T. romanticisers to signal that one isn't well disposed to Muslims. This is common knowledge, if you didn't know it before then please understand the connotations now. I didn't even realise the connotations until it was told to me via mainstream press. Beats me why it is so , but it is so, l'm afraid.

2. I find Muhammad_Isa to be an extremely affable and tolerant individual. It is a loss to the forum if you estrange this one.

3. Please can you put into a few lines what your contention with Muslims is about the crucifixion? Or l could return later and try to go through what has foregone on this thread but l am time-poor and forums are my bane therefore as they can get a bit too engrossing.

But l really don't want to produce a post with 20 bit by bit quotes of you and others, with 20 bit by bit refutations. Nor would you want to see that.

Let me start if you prefer: we as Sunni (traditional, i.e. orthodox) Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified. We are told that this is ridiculous. Sure, there is a trend throughout the world (all cultures had their prophets) that prophets would be murdered. Paradise is esoteric. But in Christ's case, my guess is that God had a higher purpose for him, as Messiah, and so he was not done yet, his death was determined to be a peaceful one with a wife and maybe offspring in a time when the lion and lamb sit down together. Not on a cross on a rainy day next to some shopflifters or whatever crimes the other 2 did.


I see nothing unreasonable in that stance. Why the conflagaration? You cannot reduce it to absurdity, so why not just say: ok we just don't believe that.

By the way: Get it out of your head that Muslims hate Christians, Muslims have overwhelmingly treated Christians well throughout history (the Assassins were an evil cult which provoked the Crusades, the Armenian so called genocide is highly contentious and you really ought to take stock of the opposite side of the story corroborated by non Muslim European observers, and also the 7 million Slavic muslims that were murdered at the same time). I'm happy to discuss this further. Sadly the opposite has not been true.
 
wil said:
Is there anywhere else we find it recorded? Other than in the stories?
Click to expand...
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

RJM Corbet said:
Own thoughts:

By 64AD there were already Christians living in Rome. They were distinct from the Jews and they did not call themselves ‘Yeshuans’. They apparently believed in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ, and celebrated the memorial Eucharistic partaking in the body and blood of Christ, for which reason they were accused of cannibalism.

This is attested historically by Tacitus.

Following from this it is difficult to accept that these earliest Christians were merely the ‘Yeshuan’ followers of a good man miracle worker Jesus.

The writings of St Paul around the same time, clearly express a faith centred around the belief in the crucified and resurrected Christ, moving away from the Judaism of the Old Testament into completely new territory. Jesus did not merely preach and heal, but he forgave sin and sacrificed himself as the last blood sacrifice, to correct the old order, and as the new Adam.

He was not just a preacher and miracle worker. His life and death and resurrection was itself the message.

The temple in Jerusalem was still intact when Peter declared in conference with other apostles that kosher and circumcision were no longer necessary for followers of the resurrected Christ, whom the NT scripture says had manifested himself for 40 days to people, before His ascension.

One can discuss the exact details of how Christians explain the divinity of Christ in Jesus fully God and fully man. But it is not reasonable to argue that early Christians did not accept the Incarnation -- and the crucifixion and the resurrection – as very different from the earlier ‘messenger’ prophets or 'sons of God'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:
(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,
(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and
(iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea."

… Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular …
Click to expand...
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
The "Moslem" variant is on the face of it no issue but as you know, it is often used by white supremacists, neo-nazis and K.T. romanticisers to signal that one isn't well disposed to Muslims. This is common knowledge, if you didn't know it before then please understand the connotations now. I didn't even realise the connotations until it was told to me via mainstream press. Beats me why it is so , but it is so, l'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Did NOT know that. Thank you and will avoid the spelling
 
Last edited:
SufiPhilosophy said:
his death was determined to be a peaceful one with a wife and maybe offspring in a time when the lion and lamb sit down together. Not on a cross on a rainy day next to some shopflifters or whatever crimes the other 2 did.
Click to expand...
Blows the mind, doesn't it? Not what anybody was expecting. There are libraries about it
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Did NOT know that. Thank you and will avoid the spelling
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I was really just addressing Thomas on his terms i.e. regarding his emotional state but am grateful for your input too.
I understand there are bodies of work on this, but all l really care for is the here and now seeing as my comments are in passing and my presence here, and indeed my life, is fleeting. So l cant really resort to the other books.


I suppose wil got to the crux of it: anyone else corroborate the crucifixion? Even if they did that doesnt actually prove thing esp. considering that the substitute's face was transfigured to be like Jesus's according to our Sunni Muslim beliefs.

So after all is said and done l would say it's unfair for Thomas to expect the other Muslim poster to accept the dogma of the Crucifixion, especially considering its supernatural nature
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
Same question to the Qur'an then ... how does it justify the deception?
Click to expand...

Ok l think this is at the heart of your contention.

Here's a synopsis of the Islamic version of events:

1. Jesus upset people so they wanted him killed
2. They eventually lynched him but they didn't ... the person lynched was actually a substitute whose face was transfigured to resemble Jesus's.
3. Jesus ascended bodily to heaven very soon thereafter
4. There were a group of young men called the People of the Cave and the Inscription who fled an enemy and God sealed them up in a cave for over 300 years, some commentators say these were the 7 Sleepers of Ephesus.


From the Christian side, to corroborate:
1. Jesus's face had been transfigured before
2. Jesus upset people so they wanted him killed
3. There was a baddie called Judas out to betray Jesus
4. He ended up hanging from a tree (c.f. crucifixion which too was a form of hanging)
5. Jesus ascended bodily to heaven
6. Jesus said that after him would come the Comforter ("Ahmad")
7. There were 7 young men fleeing persecution by an evil Roman tyrant called Decius. They entered a cave at Ephesus circa 250 CE and slept for a long time. These were the 7 Sleepers of Ephesus.


So, my synthesis showing mostly the points where Christianity and Islam concur:
i. Jesus upset people so they wanted him killed
ii. Jesus had a betrayer that ended up dead (and he was quite possibly the one whose face was substituted for Jesus)
iii. Some baddie's face - probaby that betrayer - got transfigured.
iv. That betrayer thus looked like Jesus and was crucified and his story doesn't continue past that point
v. Jesus ascended bodily to heaven but told people Ahmad would come later (yes, l know you think Ahmad is the Holy Ghost)
vi. True Christianity survived until the death of the Seven Sleepers, who after a >300 year slumber entered the local town and presumable re-stated the true gospels. Wouldn't surprise me if they got murdered. 250CE + circa [INDETERMINATE NUMBER OF YEARS, I FOOLISHLY QUOTED WIKIPEDIA AS SAYING THE QURAN SAID 309 WHEN ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T SPECIFY 309, IT SAYS SOME SAY IT WAS 309) = circa 559 CE
vii. Paulinism became supreme.
viii. Once true gospel true Nazarene Christianity was finally over and Paulinism took over, the final prophet, the Comforter, Ahmad aka Muhammad (peace be upon him) was born circa 570CE, coinciding with the ultimate death of true Christianity. He came to revive the true faith. It is also said that Christians of the Levant were awaiting a new prophet at that time.


Now, @Thomas, you say this is a mega swindle, a mega deception. I really dont' see how. Our Prophet had to hide in a cave (in a story similar to that of Robert the Bruce), with spiders weaving webs at the mouth of the cave and so putting off pursuers. Our Prophet kept very quiet when they were searching that cave.

No deception. Just surviving persecution. Look at the grand scheme of it, the Muslim narrative is coherent and doesn't invoke anything new. It is based on the following miracles:

1. Transfiguration (yes i know, not the transfiguration that you celebrate, but concept is proven yes?)
2. Tulpas or whatever you call them - you've commented on it on other threads
3. Ascension
4. Promise of another person due
5. Jesus as Messiah, with a role that is yet to be fulfilled


So it's not like the Islamic version stumbles on a faux pas, it is coherent and heroic whether you believe it or not.

Also consider that God creates and destroys the world a squillion times per instant to give the illusion of a physical reality (evolutionists eat your heart out), there's nothing untoward in these miracles that our narratives are based on.
 
Last edited:
SufiPhilosophy said:
Jesus's face had been transfigured before
Click to expand...

Zero to do with the crucifixion scenario. The transfiguration is a completely different part of scripture. Christ was transfigured to divine form.

Haven't read the rest of your post but had to jump on this one, as a fairly typical example of people from one religion needing to comment knowledgeably in order to correct the faults of another religion as they see it -- without even scraping the surface knowledge of that religion or its scriptures?
 
Last edited:
As already stated:

SufiPhilosophy said:
1. Transfiguration (yes i know, not the transfiguration that you celebrate, but concept is proven yes?)
Click to expand...

I then also proceed to mention Tulpas which is something Thomas personally posted about elsehwere.


The point being: you can accept that a face can be transfigured. Thomas can also appreciate a Tulpa. So why not baddie gets transfigured?

Try to figure out how your opponent might be correct then jump on that. :) Peace
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
As already stated:



The point being: you can accept that a face can be transfigured. Try to figure out how your opponent might be correct then jump on that.
Click to expand...
Have you read the transfiguration passages in the NT? Do you know the context? Am I required to provide the links, to enable at least a first level Wikipedia understanding of the context?

Anyone's face can be transfigured with a baseball bat ...
 
I guess the deeper question Thomas is aiming at is: If Jesus let the deus ex machina run its course, why didn't he make it clear what really happened?

Well, as l say: we believe the true Nazarene tradition continued until Paulinism stamped it out.
But still, it's a bit cruel to let Christianity as we know it today become the dominant faith of the world, surely that means God made a big mistake in the process of hoodwinking the baddies, he hoodwinked the world!

Well, that's where it gets very weird. And scary. There was a reason for the belief of a man becoming prophet, and then messiah then becoming god incarnate. It's in the Islamic eschatology and it's to do with another individual that will one day arrive on earth, who will claim each of these things in turn.

So the point is: none of this was arbitrary. I think Thomas's discomfort was that the Islamic narrative was making a huge amount of subsequent things arbitrary. If you look at our prophecies you'll see how the apotheosis concept wasn't just arbitrary, it soon takes root into something horrifying.

I'm not preaching though, just giving a full account of our beliefs. To us Christians are like an estranged big sister. Love her, don't really speak to her anymore, but if you see her on the street getting attacked of course you'll jump in to stop it. We're not enemies. Peace.
 
Why would He lie to everybody and let somebody else die in his place? Christ was a liar?The Quaran is very limited edition of the full NT account if the life and death if Jesus the Christ. The two accounts differ considerably.

EDIT
Posted before reading your own post above. Will have to check it out tomorrow. Thanks for your input :)
 
RJM Corbet said:
Have you read the transfiguration passages in the NT? Do you know the context? Am I required to provide the links, to enable at least a first level Wikipedia understanding of the context?

Anyone's face can be transfigured with a baseball bat ...
Click to expand...

I have already given my answer and yes l have read it. And no l'm not talking about bloodying someone's face. Peace.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Why would He lie to everybody and let somebody else die in his place? Christ was a liar?The Quaran is very limited edition of the full NT account if the life and death if Jesus the Christ. The two accounts differ considerably.
Click to expand...

Please read what l wrote, it's all in there. Peace. For one thing, Jesus didn't lie. He could have done, to save his life. But he didn't. Nowhere did l say that. Nor is it our beliefs. Nor would l have an issue with it if it were our beliefs.
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
Please read what l wrote, it's all in there. Peace. For one thing, Jesus didn't lie. He could have done, to save his life. But he didn't. Nowhere did l say that. Nor is it our beliefs. Nor would l have an issue with it if it were our beliefs.
Click to expand...
Post edited. Will talk tomorrow. Peace
 
Ok see you later, i may need another self imposed exile soon. I don't want to develop deity complex - which happens when talking about religion too long.

In the meanwhile if you want to follow my pointer and look into our eschatology you'll see what l mean about the person foretold to come, who actually will claim all these things, in sequence. So, nothing was arbitrary in our narrative. But i'm not asking you to believe it. I'm just explaining it that's all. Peace!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
It seems that Moslem commentaries on the Incarnation have always been dogged by contradiction.

See the discussion at length here

Most Islamic traditions categorically deny that Jesus physically died on the cross or otherwise. Most traditions instead teach substitution, or the idea that another person was crucified in Jesus' place. However, some modern Muslim scholars believe that Jesus did indeed die, and references to his survival are angogical.

Disagreement and confusion on the nature of Jesus' death is found within the Islamic canon itself, with the earliest Hadith quoting the companions of Muhammad saying that Jesus had died. Meanwhile, the majority of subsequent Hadith and Tafsir argue in favor of the opposite.
-- from wiki --

(Modern Moslem scholarship makes more sense to me, as @muhammad_isa has said, we're not in the Middle Ages any more)

It seems the substitutionist theory originated with 2nd century Gnostics, and the Quran and Hadith have been clearly influenced by (heretical) Christian sources that prevailed in the Arab peninsula.

Muslim commentators have been unable to convincingly disprove the crucifixion, the problem compounded by their substitutionist theories.

Most Western scholars, Jews and Christians believe Jesus died, while orthodox Muslim theology teaches He ascended to Heaven without being put on the cross and God transformed another person, Simon of Cyrene, to appear exactly like Jesus who was crucified instead of Jesus.

Disagreement and discord can be traced to Ibn Ishaq (d. 761), reporting that Jesus was replaced by someone named Sergius, that His tomb is in Medina.

John of Damascus highlighted the Quran's assertion that the Jews did not crucify Jesus being very different from saying that Jesus was not crucified, explaining that it is the varied Quranic exegetes in Tafsir, and not the Quran itself, that denies the crucifixion, further stating that the message in the 4:157 verse simply affirms the historicity of the event.

Subsequent scholars of the 10th century on affirm the historicity of the Crucifixion, reporting Jesus was crucified and not substituted.

More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:
The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts. (3:55; 5:117; 19:33.)

Early interpretations of verse 3:55 ("I will cause you to die and raise you to myself"), attributed to Ibn 'Abbas, used the literal "I will cause you to die" (mumayyitu-ka) rather than the metaphorical mutawaffi-ka "Jesus died". Wahb ibn Munabbih, an early Jewish convert, reportedly said "God caused Jesus, son of Mary, to die for three hours during the day, then took him up to himself." From Ibn Ishaq: "God caused Jesus to die for seven hours", while at another place reported that a person called Sergius was crucified in place of Jesus. Ibn-al-Athir forwarded the report that it was Judas, while also mentioning the possibility it was a man named Natlianus.

Al-Masudi (d. 956) reported the death of Christ under Tiberius.

Mahmoud Ayoub furthers modern Islamic scholars' interpreting the historical death of Jesus, the man, as man's inability to kill off God's Word and the Spirit of God, which the Quran testifies were embodied in Jesus Christ. Ayoub continues highlighting the denial of the killing of Jesus as God (my emphasis) denying men such power to vanquish and destroy the divine Word. The words, "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him" speaks to the profound events of ephemeral human history, exposing mankind's heart and conscience towards God's will. The claim of humanity to have this power against God is illusory. "They did not slay him ...but it seemed so to them" speaks to the imaginations of mankind, not the denial of the actual event of Jesus dying physically on the cross. Islamic reformer Muhammad Rashid Rida agrees.
-- from wiki --

So it seems that:
The narratives of Jesus are derived from various Christian sources, orthodox, heterodox and heresiarch. The nativity (primarily Luke) with additional speculation about Mary and Joseph's 'backstory'. The infancy narratives are apocryphal and were regarded by the Fathers as post-era fictions.

The crucifixion – clouded by conflicting commentaries – can be seen as utilising Gnostic speculation to interpret a metaphorical reading of the Qur'an as literal. Read metaphorically, it does not contradict that orthodox Christian understanding – that Christ was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven.

Modern Islamic scholarship makes the most sense to me.

There's no mention of some a 'Pilate conspiracy', which frankly sounds a bit like some 'Dan Brown' nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nice post that highlights the various Muslim interpretations of the Qur’an.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top