I don't. I do hold it accountable to the same critical analysis you apply to the New Testament, I'm certainly not as dismissive of the Qur'an as you are of some of the NT, for example.
Same here.
Did Jesus Die On The Cross?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
- Status
Precisely .. that's what it is all about. Those authors of the NT that were convinced Jesus is divine,
will word their versions of events different to those that don't.
It is human nature.
Even in interpretations/translations of a text, we can see varying implied meanings, so..
I agree .. I can't believe that Jesus watched laughing. There again, I can't believe he watched crying, either
Not "wrong", but not word for word what Jesus actually said, I would think
There is no need for such extreme reaction. It is foolish to reject scripture in its entirety.
It is most certainly necessary to study ALL scriptures, and join all the dots,
and not dwell on certain bits in a creed, and hence a handful of verses.
That is what sectarian people do.
The most important part of creed is belief in God [ YHWH ] and being strict monotheist.
If creeds contradict that, it doesn't matter what verses you quote, there is something wrong. The author
cannot be following what Jesus followed. He was a strict monotheist and did NOT claim to be God / Divine.
Explain?I agree .. I can't believe that Jesus watched laughing. There again, I can't believe he watched crying, either
Which comes out as: I accept the parts of the gospels that can, with a lot of liberty on the text, unconvincingly be laboured and manipulated perhaps to agree with the Quran -- and reject the rest?Not "wrong", but not word for word what Jesus actually said, I would think
There is no need for such extreme reaction. It is foolish to reject scripture in its entirety.
It is most certainly necessary to study ALL scriptures, and join all the dots,
and not dwell on certain bits in a creed, and hence a handful of verses.
That is what sectarian people do.
The most important part of creed is belief in God [ YHWH ] and being strict monotheist.
If creeds contradict that, it doesn't matter what verses you quote, there is something wrong. The author
cannot be following what Jesus followed. He was a strict monotheist and did NOT claim to be God / Divine.
That's fine. It's your only argument. I quite understand your quandary
From the wiki article you posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death
He [Christ] appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles (apparuisse eum ... virtutes perfecisse). Thus, he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled (Simonem quendam Cyrenaeum angariatum) to carry his cross for him. It was he [Simon] who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified (et hunc ... crucifixum), being transfigured by him [Jesus], so that (ut) he [Simon] might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon and stood by, laughing at them.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, Section 40: 80
I was not afflicted at all. Those there punished me, yet I did not die in solid reality but in what appears, in order that I not be put to shame by them [...] For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. [...] Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance.
Second Treatise of the Great Seth,
I saw him (Jesus) seemingly being seized by them. And I said 'What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?' The Saviour said to me, 'He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.' But I, when I had looked, said 'Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.' But he said to me, 'I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame.' And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Saviour. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed.
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
Finally:
The Gospel of Peter is a docetic Apocryphal Gospel. The British biblical scholar F. F. Bruce, who served as Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the Victoria University of Manchester, wrote in a commentary about this text:
The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death, it carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.
That's it? That’s all she wrote. That’s all the ‘independent’ evidence you have?
Last edited:
What's the matter with you now?
Are you trying to show others that you are right, or are you trying to convince yourself?
Your attitude reminds me of the atheist .. "what proof have you got bla bla?"
..sorry, I am just one person with the belief that he did not die .. it is not just that verse in Qur'an..
..as you say, it is about the nature of God which is FUNDAMENTAL.
It doesn't matter what your so-called "evidence" is, if it contradicts the shema I question it.
Jesus dying on the cross does not contradict the shema.
..yet that is not really why you are making a big deal about it. Your agenda is to prove that
he was resurrected, and that he MUST be Divine in that case.
Of course, that is false logic. It doesn't mean that at all. God is able to make any person alive again after they die.
The dajal (false messiah) will also make dead people come alive.
No @muhammad_isa
My object is first to seek evidence of whether or not Jesus was crucified, and secondly if it is proposed he did not die on the cross, to require reasonable independent evidence of that claim. The Quran alone -- or your belief alone -- will not do.
Stump up or butt out
My object is first to seek evidence of whether or not Jesus was crucified, and secondly if it is proposed he did not die on the cross, to require reasonable independent evidence of that claim. The Quran alone -- or your belief alone -- will not do.
Stump up or butt out
Last edited:
Carry on looking.
..but statements like "Stump up or butt out" and "That's it? That’s all she wrote. That’s all the ‘independent’ evidence you have?" appears as arrogant to me.
No ..it's not the only evidence .. but you can do your own research or badger somebody else.
There are 200 posts in this thread, and I have made roughly half of them. Please yourself.
It is entirely up to you.
You like your creed / way / religion ? Stick to it.
..and I'll stick to strict monotheism. Bye for now
Last edited:
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 219
- Points
- 43
It might be better to set aside this 'conversation'.
Too much heat, and not enough light...or so it seems.
Peace.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
-Hebrews 5-
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
-Hebrews 5-
Last edited:
Pilate intentionally delayed in giving his verdict and did not deliver his judgment until and unless he was sure that due to the Sabbath, Jesus would be on the cross for only a few hours. Jesus a thirty-three years young person was on the cross for only few (3-6) hours.
Pilate's wife had a dream:-
19 When he sat down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”
(Matthew 27)
Pilate's wife had a dream:-
19 When he sat down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”
(Matthew 27)
We know that Jesus was not a spirit, but was still a physical human when he was seen after being on the cross..
… he said unto them, have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-42)
Jesus never mentioned that the purpose of his coming was to give his life on the cross.
Jews bribed the soldiers who had been assigned to guard the sepulcher.
“And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken council, they gave large money unto the soldiers.”(Matt 28:12)
They bribed the soldiers to hide something. What was that?
… he said unto them, have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-42)
Jesus never mentioned that the purpose of his coming was to give his life on the cross.
Jews bribed the soldiers who had been assigned to guard the sepulcher.
“And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken council, they gave large money unto the soldiers.”(Matt 28:12)
They bribed the soldiers to hide something. What was that?
Like I said a person can wiki up NT passages to prove that Jesus was on magic mushrooms, or was a Matrixist or a Moonie if they're prepared to isolate passages out of context and ignore the overall reading and parts that don't fit their theory -- like the piercing with the lance. It never ends, and it doesn't mean a thing.
It just a circle of supposition from here on. Unless anyone else has anything, imo
It just a circle of supposition from here on. Unless anyone else has anything, imo
Last edited:
Not to you, no. You have already made your mind up..
..so you are in fact asking a "rhetorical question":-
Did Jesus Die On The Cross? you ask..
No matter WHAT evidence I produce, you will dismiiss it, and quote:-
"Jesus told the disciples that he would be killed, so your evidence must be wrong."
A technical point, as the Gospel authors already believed that he died, and so when writing their accounts, it
is entirely plausible that the words crucify / put on a cross / was killed , got jumbled.
God knows best what happened, and He guides whomsoever He wills to truth .. and leaves "blind" whomsoever He wills.
Truth is not about Christian belief v. Muslim belief. It is about our intentions and sincerity.
Almighty God knows what is in our hearts better than we know ourselves.
He knows why we "say what we say" .. Glory be to God, who shares no partner in His sovereignty.
He has no wife .. no child .. no father .. no mother. He is unique / absolute.
Upshot of my two long posts on this topic:
When it comes to the Qur’an on the Crucifixion, Surat al-Nisa’ 4.157 opens with the word wii (‘and’). When this 'and' is taken into account, the verse is contextualised, following on from and continuing the text, it's another example of Israel's infidelity, it does not actually deny the crucifixion nor the death and resurrection, rather it locates those events in Allah's unfolding plan of man's salvation.
regarding the infidelity, there are six cited: worshipping the golden calf (4.153), breaking the covenant (4.155; cf. 5.13), disbelieving the signs of God (4.155; cf: 3.4), murdering the prophets (4.155; cf. 3.181), slandering Mary (4.156; cf. 19.27-8) and claiming to have killed Jesus (4.157). In other words, in the verse the Qur’an can be read to defend Jesus from the claims of the Jews, as it defends Mary from their claims in the previous verse.
In the Qur'an, God creates life and He takes life away. The Quran says in 8.17: "You did not kill them. God killed them." Still more explicit is 3.145: "No one can die except by God’s permission". Elsewhere the Qur'an uses the death of Jesus (and Mary) as a paradigmatic example to this effect, when it asks: "If God desired to take the life of Jesus the Son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth, who could resist Him?" (5.17).
The many and various, often contradictory traditions explaining what happened are fleshed-out narratives born in a time of sectarian tension. They say more about Islam/Christian/Jewish relations than Revelation.
+++
Two further points:
In Sura al-Ma’ida a dialogue between Allah and Jesus takes place:
"And when Allah will say, 'O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, "Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'", he will answer, 'Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things." (5:116)
This is of interest, because if Jesus never said it, why does Allah accuse Him of it? Nowhere in the Bible, nor in the writings of the Fathers nor, I think, in apocryphal texts, does Jesus ask the community to regard Mary as Divine.
But that's how the devotion to the Blessed Virgin appeared to Muslims as they conquered Christian territories. That's how Nestorian Christians, who broke with the orthodox church over the title Theotokos – would explain it to their neighbours.
And another:
The Qur'an’s reference to the Jews speaking against Mary (4.156) has no biblical precedent. Rather, the Quran’s rejection of this claim appears as a response to anti-Christian passages in the Talmud. It is the Talmud that slanders the virtue of Mary: "This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'" Perhaps it is not coincidental that Qur'an contains, in the same Surat, indeed in the same passage, a defence of Mary from Jewish calumny and a rejection of the Jewish claim to have killed Christ.
In all this, the Qur'an aligns with Christian doctrine. There is no contradiction, once one realises that the subsequent narrative traditions surrounding the event – the substitution (or not) Pilate's crafty footwork (or not) – all of it are exegetical and polemical, born in a time of sectarian tension.
The same with Jesus in the End Time, leading prayers in Jerusalem, etc. None of it is founded on the Qur'an. All of it is narrative construct of the sitz im leben.
When it comes to the Qur’an on the Crucifixion, Surat al-Nisa’ 4.157 opens with the word wii (‘and’). When this 'and' is taken into account, the verse is contextualised, following on from and continuing the text, it's another example of Israel's infidelity, it does not actually deny the crucifixion nor the death and resurrection, rather it locates those events in Allah's unfolding plan of man's salvation.
regarding the infidelity, there are six cited: worshipping the golden calf (4.153), breaking the covenant (4.155; cf. 5.13), disbelieving the signs of God (4.155; cf: 3.4), murdering the prophets (4.155; cf. 3.181), slandering Mary (4.156; cf. 19.27-8) and claiming to have killed Jesus (4.157). In other words, in the verse the Qur’an can be read to defend Jesus from the claims of the Jews, as it defends Mary from their claims in the previous verse.
In the Qur'an, God creates life and He takes life away. The Quran says in 8.17: "You did not kill them. God killed them." Still more explicit is 3.145: "No one can die except by God’s permission". Elsewhere the Qur'an uses the death of Jesus (and Mary) as a paradigmatic example to this effect, when it asks: "If God desired to take the life of Jesus the Son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth, who could resist Him?" (5.17).
The many and various, often contradictory traditions explaining what happened are fleshed-out narratives born in a time of sectarian tension. They say more about Islam/Christian/Jewish relations than Revelation.
+++
Two further points:
In Sura al-Ma’ida a dialogue between Allah and Jesus takes place:
"And when Allah will say, 'O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, "Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'", he will answer, 'Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things." (5:116)
This is of interest, because if Jesus never said it, why does Allah accuse Him of it? Nowhere in the Bible, nor in the writings of the Fathers nor, I think, in apocryphal texts, does Jesus ask the community to regard Mary as Divine.
But that's how the devotion to the Blessed Virgin appeared to Muslims as they conquered Christian territories. That's how Nestorian Christians, who broke with the orthodox church over the title Theotokos – would explain it to their neighbours.
And another:
The Qur'an’s reference to the Jews speaking against Mary (4.156) has no biblical precedent. Rather, the Quran’s rejection of this claim appears as a response to anti-Christian passages in the Talmud. It is the Talmud that slanders the virtue of Mary: "This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'" Perhaps it is not coincidental that Qur'an contains, in the same Surat, indeed in the same passage, a defence of Mary from Jewish calumny and a rejection of the Jewish claim to have killed Christ.
In all this, the Qur'an aligns with Christian doctrine. There is no contradiction, once one realises that the subsequent narrative traditions surrounding the event – the substitution (or not) Pilate's crafty footwork (or not) – all of it are exegetical and polemical, born in a time of sectarian tension.
The same with Jesus in the End Time, leading prayers in Jerusalem, etc. None of it is founded on the Qur'an. All of it is narrative construct of the sitz im leben.
I think that is your mistake there..
The vast majority of Muslims don't think that he WILL be leading prayers .. he'll be following.
That would be Imam Mahdi. However, the Imam will not contradict Jesus, naturally.
Right. They are hypothesis, and not definite.
Almighty God knows best what exactly took place, but..
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
-Mark 9-
..that doesn't look like Jesus teaching them that that was why he (Jesus) had been sent.
i.e. to ransom himself for the human race.
Furthermore, the fact that the word "kill" is used does NOT mean that Jesus actually used those words.
The author clearly believed that he died. That does not mean that all Christians believed that when it was written, but it
could well be that the majority did. That is the trouble with text written by humans .. it can mislead.
i.e. what is written is often influenced by the beliefs of authors, albeit not purposely to mislead
Naturally, you will say / believe that the Bible canon was effectively chosen by God by
inspiring men .. and that it is therefore more or less literally correct.
That is a belief, and it is only when one appreciates how magnificent the Qur'an is, that
one would think otherwise.
i.e. human authored texts are not infallible
Last edited:
I never know what @Thomas is going to say, lol
Stiff an unfounded speculation, though, isn't it, along with the other things He's supposed to do ...
Well my knowledge of Arabic is insufficient to make any such judgement.
But the main point stands, the Qur'an does not actually contradict the New Testament on the matter...
Is it?
The following hadith is "sahih" [ sound ], which means that it has multiple chains of transmission.
i.e. so-and-so told so-and-so that so-and-so ... that Muhammad SAW is reported to have said:-
(31) CHAPTER. The breaking of the cross
and the killing of the pigs
2476. Narrated Abü Hurairah that
Allah's Messenger SAW said, "The Hour will
not be established until the son of Mary [i.e., 'lsa (Jesus) ] descends amongst you
and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Qur'an (as a just ruler); he will break the
cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that
nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts)
- Sahih-Bukhari [ and others ] -
The above hadith has to be understood in the correct context. If there is any confusion,
I will explain what I know about it. eg. Jesus won't literally go around breaking crosses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also the following verse in the Qur'an:-
57 And when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out,
58 And say: Are our gods better, or is he? They raise not the objection save for argument. Nay! but they are a contentious folk.
59 He is nothing but a slave on whom We bestowed favor, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel.
60 And had We willed We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth.
61 And lo! verily there is knowledge of the Hour. So doubt ye not concerning it, but follow Me. This is the right path.
62 And let not Satan turn you aside. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.
63 When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.
64 Lo! Allah, He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. This is a right path.
65 But the factions among them differed. Then woe unto those who do wrong from the doom of a painful day.
66 Await they aught save the Hour, that it shall come upon them suddenly, when they know not?
- Al Zukhruf, (Ornaments of Gold) -
The translation by Yusef Ali of v. 61 ---------->
61. And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.
..and God knows best.
Last edited:
- Status