Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is, it's 'a tradition of men'.

The following hadith is "sahih" [ sound ], which means that it has multiple chains of transmission.
Quite, each stage open to interpretations, to additions and subtractions, corrections and revisions, etc.

As I understand it, a 'hadith' is not infallible – reliable, but not infallible. We think the same way about the Fathers, for example.

The fact that the traditions of the crucifixion contradict each other shows they derive from different narrative sources.

The same with the End Time teachings, they're exegetical, they're pastoral, but they're not Revelation per se. They're reasoned speculations at best, and that's not it any way a criticism. They're what our Buddhist friends would call an upaya – and expedient means.

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 ;)
It's the the context that gave rise to the insight regarding its origin.
 
The point is, it's 'a tradition of men'.
Quite, each stage open to interpretations, to additions and subtractions, corrections and revisions, etc.

As I understand it, a 'hadith' is not infallible – reliable, but not infallible. We think the same way about the Fathers, for example..

True. Hadith does not have the same "weight" as Qur'an.
However, hadiths are graded.

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

The fact that the traditions of the crucifixion contradict each other shows they derive from different narrative sources.

I don't think so..
It is only the opinions of scholars. [ now, THAT is much like "the fathers" ]
Some of these scholars have a good knowldege of Christianity, and some don't.

The hadith about Jesus returning is classified as "very reliable". That is why the vast majority of Muslims believe it.
The classifications is a scientific approach .. i.e. employs statistical analysis
It's not foolproof, but it does "weed out" hearsay. That is not to say that weak hadiths can't be correct, of course.
Unless they are contradictory, that is..

They're reasoned speculations at best

NOT speculation. They are based on reliable people reporting on what the prophet SAW said.
..no different than the Gospels "according to" .. :)
 
Last edited:
The Qur'an, for example, does not contain detailed instructions on how to perform ritual prayer [ 5 times salat ]
This comes from hadith.

We can't ignore hadith, imo. It is important.
It contains important tafsir [ explanation ] of various issues.

It is the most important literature after the Qur'an.
..THEN comes other books containing opinions of scholars and historical accounts etc.
 
Do you mean me, or Muslims in general?
Generally.

Regarding the crucifixion, there are differing and contradictory accounts ... I wonder how they are viewed/resolved, in the sense that they can't all be right, so could all be wrong, kind of thing ...
 
.............

You write that Pliny:

‘Supports the eucharistic practice and also the singing of hymns to Christ 'as if to a God' -- true he does not mention the crucifixion, as Tacitus does, but the whole letter supports their belief in the gospel narratives.’

Comment:

The letter does not ‘support the eucharistic practice’; indeed the text (in the Latin) does not use the word ‘eucharist’ (‘eucharistia) at all. Here is the relevant extract:

‘Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum in vicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria, committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid sset veri et per tormenta quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam, immodicam.’ (based on Stout 1962:354–57; my emphasis).

Note: The word ‘sacramento’ is correctly rendered ‘oath’ (see below).

Paul F. Bradshaw writes:

‘One of the major difficulties faced by scholars with regard to the origin of the Eucharist is the question of how far the accounts of the Last Supper may be treated as reliable descriptions of an actual historical event and how far they have been affected by the later liturgical practices of the first generation of Christians.’ (‘The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship’).

The Didache (an early Christian writing, contemporaneous with Pliny’s Letter to Trajan) contains the following Eucharistic liturgy:

‘Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks.

‘First, concerning the cup:

‘“We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.”

‘And concerning the broken bread:

‘“We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”

‘After this, the minister should give thanks as follows:

‘“We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.”’ (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles – Chapters 9 and 10’).

I think you will agree that the Didache places the ‘eucharistic practice’ firmly within the context of a religious ceremony; a rite.

As you will see from the following extracts, the Pliny Christians assembled for their common meal only after their formal ceremony was complete. Moreover, some are said to have ceased this practice following an edict that outlawed secret gatherings:

‘They maintained, however, that all that their guilt or error involved was that they were accustomed to assemble at dawn on a fixed day, to sing a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of some crime, but to avoid acts of theft, brigandage, and adultery, not to break their word, and not to withhold money deposited with them when asked for it. When these rites were completed, it was their custom to depart, and then to assemble again to take food, which was however common and harmless. They had ceased, they said, to do this following my edict, by which in accordance with your instructions I had outlawed the existence of secret brotherhoods.’ (from ‘Complete Letters (Oxford World's Classics)’ by Pliny the Younger’; my emphasis).

‘They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies.’ (from ‘The Letters of the Younger Pliny (Classics)’; by Pliny the Younger; again, my emphasis).

Continued:

 
You then write:

‘IMO of course if they believed and practiced the eucharist and sang hymns to Christ as if he were a God -- that they also believed in the death on the cross, and in all probability the resurrection too.
‘Far more likely that they did, than did not?’

Not necessarily. Even before Paul – and certainly before the Gospels – there were Christian groups who believed that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) had nothing to do with dying on a cross, or being resurrected. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, makes no reference to either event.

The anonymous author of ‘John’ – writing decades after the life of Yeshua – most certainly knew of these Thomasines, since he targets them with the following – very well known – ‘Doubting Thomas’ pericope:

‘Thomas, called the Twin, who was one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, 'We have seen the Lord,' but he answered, 'Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.'

‘Eight days later the disciples were in the house again and Thomas was with them. The doors were closed, but Jesus came in and stood among them. 'Peace be with you,' he said. Then he spoke to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; look, here are my hands. Give me your hand; put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving any more but believe.' Thomas replied, 'My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ (Jn: 20: 24-29). This pericope is, of course, pure propaganda; a fiction, created for theological purposes.

By the way, assuming the Pliny Christians did indeed believe in the crucifixion, so what? Pliny makes no mention of it; and were he to have done so, that would only be confirmation what his prisoners believed. Such confirmation – of itself – would not add verisimilitude to their belief.

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), but Emperor Haile Selassie, as described by the Rastafarians.

Does the fact that I have confirmed Rastafarian belief prove that Selassie is God?

Peace.
 
@Thomas.

Greetings, Thomas.

In Post 102 you reference Gabriel Said Reynolds, who quotes from Sūrah Al-Ma’ida:

‘I told them only what You commanded me to: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them. Ever since You took my soul (‘tawaffaytanī’), You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things’ (ʾĀyah 117).

Reynolds writes (my emphasis):

‘The verb tawaffa causes significant problems among Muslim exegetes. Tawaffa appears in 25 passages in the Qur'an, twice in relation to Jesus (5.117 and 3.55). For the other 23, the standard and common definition is understood – separating the soul from the body, making someone die.

‘For the two verses where tawaffa applies to Jesus however, exegetes generally apply a secondary meaning of the term, 'to sleep' or even 'to take up', so reconciling these verses with the denial of the crucifixion.

‘However, tawaffa means to die, and it takes some nuanced exegesis to make it say otherwise – it could be said that such a theological 'sleight of hand' is just the kind of thing Christian exegetes are accused of – reading 'young woman' to mean 'virgin' is an obvious example.’

Oh dear! :rolleyes:


The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘death’ as: ‘A permanent cessation of all vital functions – the end of life.’; and this is what most people understand whenever they hear the word, or see it written. However, the Qur’an uses two different terms when referring to death: ‘tawaffâ’ and ‘mawt’. Only ‘mawt’ accords with the Merriam-Webster definition.

Concerning ‘Tawaffâ’:

It must be remembered that an Arabic word may have a range of meanings, depending on context.

Tawaffâ’ stems from the trilateral root ‘wāw fā yā’; and, in our context, invokes the notion of completion and fulfilment. The Qur’anic image of death through ‘tawaffâ’ is quite different from that of ‘mawt’. For a start, ‘tawaffâ’ is never associated with ‘qatala’ (killing)); instead, it is juxtaposed with ‘nawm’ (sleep). Moreover, there is no notion of physical damage or decomposition in ‘tawaffâ’.

Sleep is described as a repeated nightly death: ‘It is He who takes your souls back by night, (‘yatawaffākum bi-al-layli’) knowing what you have done by day, then raises you up again in the daytime until your appointed time is fulfilled. It is to Him that you will return in the end, and He will tell you what you have done.’ (Al-An‘am: 60).

Concerning ‘Mawt’:

Mawt’ stems from the trilateral root ‘mīm wāw tā’ – ‘māta’.

Abdur Rashid Siddiqui reminds us that:

‘Māta means to die, to perish, to lose life. Mawt from this root means death or demise. This is the opposite of life. The word Mawt is used for absence of life in living creatures as well as plants and metaphorically for inanimate objects like stone where there is an absence of greenery (Qāf 50: 11). When a person dies he loses all sensation and consciousness whereas during sleep one only suffers loss of consciousness; even this is described figuratively as death (al-Zumar 39: 42; al-Anʿām 6: 60). Death is something that is inevitable: it is the most predictable event. In the Qur’ān it is referred to as Yaqīn (certainty) (al-Ḥijr 15: 99; al-Muddaththir 74: 47). It is stated that “every soul shall taste death” (Āl ʿImrān 3: 185).’ (‘Qur'anic Keywords: A Reference Guide’).

A major point of distinction between ‘mawt’ and ‘tawaffâ’ is that only the former is associated with killing, murder or manslaughter (‘qatala’).

We see examples of ‘qatala’ (and its derivatives) in Al-Nisa: 155-158, and in the following:

‘And Pharaoh said: “Leave me to kill Moses (‘aqtulu Musa’) – let him call upon his Lord! – for I fear he may cause you to change your religion, or spread disorder in the land.”’ (Ghafi: 26); and again: ‘They were struck with humiliation and wretchedness, and they incurred the wrath of Allāh because they persistently rejected His messages and killed (‘yaqtuloona’) prophets contrary to all that is right. All this was because they disobeyed and were lawbreakers.’ (Al-Baqara: 61); and again: ‘Allāh has certainly heard the words of those who sneer, “So Allāh is poor, while we are rich”. We shall record everything they say – as well as their killing (‘wa qatlahum’) of prophets in defiance of all that is right – and We shall say to them: “Taste the torment of the scorching fire.”’ (Al‘Imran: 181). There are several others verses where derivatives of ‘qatala’ are used when describing the death of prophets.

With ‘mawt’ comes the natural decomposition of the body; its return to dust.

It is worth noting that whenever a verse includes reference to a person’s predestined death the term used is always ‘mawt’, with no chance to return to life, save at the Day of Resurrection. There are no exceptions.

Derivatives of ‘qatala’ – used in reference to the killing of prophets – are never used of Yeshua, except as a false claim, and its denial (‘Al-Nisa’: 155-158).

A derivative of ‘mawt’– used as an expression of natural (biological) death in used only once of Yeshua; in Sūrah Maryam. See below.

Continued:
 
Last edited:
In Post 103 you write:

‘A contemporary Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayoub noted that the Qur'an does not deny the death of Jesus………’

It most certainly does:

‘(The Jews) said: “We have killed (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.”

‘….they certainly did not kill him (‘wamā qatalūhu’).

‘…..nor did they crucify him….(‘wamā ṣalabūhu’); )….– Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (from Al-Nisa: 155-158; my emphasis).

There are folk (the Isma‘ili, for example – and Mahmoud Ayoub is one) who say that the Qur’an is denying only that the Jews crucified Yeshua. Not so. The Qur’an is saying that Yeshua was not crucified (or killed) at all – not by the Jews, and not by anyone else.

Some argue that it was Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) Himself who did the killing. They quote from two sūrahs.

The first:

‘Those who say: “Allāh is the Messiah, the son of Mary,” are defying the truth. Say: “If it had been Allāh’s will, could anyone have prevented Him from destroying the Messiah, son of Mary, together with his mother and everyone else on earth? Control of the heavens and earth and all that is between them belongs to Allāh: He creates whatever He will. God has power over everything.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 17)

This ʾāyah is a denial of the claim that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is divine. The denial is issued with reference to the Exalted’s creative and destructive power. He – who cannot destroy Himself – can easily destroy Yeshua, who is but a creature. It says nothing about actually killing him.


And the second:

‘No soul may die except with Allāh’s permission at a predestined time.’ (Al‘Imran 145).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘This verse reinforces the message of the previous verse that all human beings, including prophets, will die, and this death does not diminish the mission of prophethood.

‘Moreover, it is interpreted as a means of imparting wisdom regarding fear and courage, a reminder that fear and cowardice do no one any good, and that one should courageously fight for the good. It also denies the hypocrites the right to say such things as, “Had he been with us, he would not have died”. A long ḥadīth describes a warrior, a philanthropist, and a scholar who expect Paradise for their actions while having only worldly intentions: the warrior for his fighting and dying, the philanthropist for giving charity, and the scholar for teaching others. Their true intentions of gaining only worldly renown and glory are exposed by God on the Day of Judgment, and they are rewarded with the Fire instead of Paradise. Regarding desiring the rewards of both this world and the Hereafter.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Nothing to do with Yeshua.

Continued:
 
Let’s return to Sūrah Al-Nisa:

‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” – Nay! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little – and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said: “We have killed (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill (‘qatalūhu’) him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised (‘rafaʿahu’) him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (155-158; my emphasis).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘The verse is thus understood as referring to Jesus’ direct ascension from the earthly realm to the Presence of God without the intervening event of death. The Quran is clear elsewhere, however, that Jesus is not Divine (5:116). Logically, then, he must share in human mortality. Islamic tradition holds Jesus will return near the end times to fight the Antichrist (al-Dajjāl) and will thereafter eventually die and be resurrected with the rest of humanity. Cf. 19:33, where Jesus affirms his future death and “resurrection,” saying, Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am raised alive (ubʿathu ḥayyan, from baʿatha).’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’; my emphasis).

You will see that the Shaykh references Sūrah Maryam:

‘She (Mary) went back to her people carrying the child, and they said: “Mary! You have done something terrible! Sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!” She pointed at him. They said: “How can we converse with an infant?” (But) he said: “I am a servant of God. He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet; made me blessed wherever I may be. He commanded me to pray, to give alms as long as I live, to cherish my mother. He did not make me domineering or graceless. Peace was on me the day I was born, and will be on me the day I die (‘amūtu’) and the day I am raised to life (‘ub'ʿathu’) again.’ (ʾĀyāt 27-34).

Note that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) uses the word ‘amūtu’ and not ‘qatalūhu’; and from this it is clear that he is foretelling his natural, biological, death, and not a violent death at the hands of others.

The word ‘ub'ʿathu’ confirms that Yeshua will be resurrected from his grave.

This contrasts with the words: ‘Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised (‘rafaʿahu’) him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa 158; my emphasis).

Allow me to remind you that ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) stands in contrast to ‘ba‘atha’, which rmeans ‘to resurrect’ after death.

Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes: ‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana); and Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (Tafsir of the Qur'an); and Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (Majmu' Fatawa).

Summary:

To mark the end of Yeshua’s ministry, and his ascension, the Qur’an uses ‘rafaʿahu’ – to be raised, without having been killed (‘wamā qatalūhu’ – ‘they did not kill him’); without having been resurrected.

To mark the end of his natural life – following his return as Messiah, and subsequent deeds – the Qur’an uses ‘amūtu’ – from ‘mawt’; meaning a natural death; and ‘ub'ʿathu; meaning to be resurrected from the grave.

Peace.
 
You write that Pliny:

‘Supports the eucharistic practice and also the singing of hymns to Christ 'as if to a God' -- true he does not mention the crucifixion, as Tacitus does, but the whole letter supports their belief in the gospel narratives.’

Comment:

The letter does not ‘support the eucharistic practice’; indeed the text (in the Latin) does not use the word ‘eucharist’ (‘eucharistia) at all. Here is the relevant extract:

‘Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum in vicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria, committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid sset veri et per tormenta quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam, immodicam.’ (based on Stout 1962:354–57; my emphasis).

Note: The word ‘sacramento’ is correctly rendered ‘oath’ (see below).

Paul F. Bradshaw writes:

‘One of the major difficulties faced by scholars with regard to the origin of the Eucharist is the question of how far the accounts of the Last Supper may be treated as reliable descriptions of an actual historical event and how far they have been affected by the later liturgical practices of the first generation of Christians.’ (‘The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship’).

The Didache (an early Christian writing, contemporaneous with Pliny’s Letter to Trajan) contains the following Eucharistic liturgy:

‘Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks.

‘First, concerning the cup:

‘“We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.”

‘And concerning the broken bread:

‘“We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”

‘After this, the minister should give thanks as follows:

‘“We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.”’ (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles – Chapters 9 and 10’).

I think you will agree that the Didache places the ‘eucharistic practice’ firmly within the context of a religious ceremony; a rite.

As you will see from the following extracts, the Pliny Christians assembled for their common meal only after their formal ceremony was complete. Moreover, some are said to have ceased this practice following an edict that outlawed secret gatherings:

‘They maintained, however, that all that their guilt or error involved was that they were accustomed to assemble at dawn on a fixed day, to sing a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of some crime, but to avoid acts of theft, brigandage, and adultery, not to break their word, and not to withhold money deposited with them when asked for it. When these rites were completed, it was their custom to depart, and then to assemble again to take food, which was however common and harmless. They had ceased, they said, to do this following my edict, by which in accordance with your instructions I had outlawed the existence of secret brotherhoods.’ (from ‘Complete Letters (Oxford World's Classics)’ by Pliny the Younger’; my emphasis).

‘They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies.’ (from ‘The Letters of the Younger Pliny (Classics)’; by Pliny the Younger; again, my emphasis).

Continued:
You then write:

‘IMO of course if they believed and practiced the eucharist and sang hymns to Christ as if he were a God -- that they also believed in the death on the cross, and in all probability the resurrection too.
‘Far more likely that they did, than did not?’

Not necessarily. Even before Paul – and certainly before the Gospels – there were Christian groups who believed that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) had nothing to do with dying on a cross, or being resurrected. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, makes no reference to either event.

The anonymous author of ‘John’ – writing decades after the life of Yeshua – most certainly knew of these Thomasines, since he targets them with the following – very well known – ‘Doubting Thomas’ pericope:

‘Thomas, called the Twin, who was one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, 'We have seen the Lord,' but he answered, 'Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.'

‘Eight days later the disciples were in the house again and Thomas was with them. The doors were closed, but Jesus came in and stood among them. 'Peace be with you,' he said. Then he spoke to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; look, here are my hands. Give me your hand; put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving any more but believe.' Thomas replied, 'My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ (Jn: 20: 24-29). This pericope is, of course, pure propaganda; a fiction, created for theological purposes.

By the way, assuming the Pliny Christians did indeed believe in the crucifixion, so what? Pliny makes no mention of it; and were he to have done so, that would only be confirmation what his prisoners believed. Such confirmation – of itself – would not add verisimilitude to their belief.

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), but Emperor Haile Selassie, as described by the Rastafarians.

Does the fact that I have confirmed Rastafarian belief prove that Selassie is God?

Peace.
Thank you.

Perhaps then I should have written that Pliny's letter seems to uphold that early Christians celebrated something along the lines of what was to become the eucharistic ritual of later Christianity?

I've been saying that regarding the death on the cross, most early Christians obviously believed it happened. Also that at least a part of the justification for the persecution of early Christians in Rome was that the accusation of cannibalism could be levered against them -- as implied both by Tacitus's mention of their 'depraved practices' and also Pliny making clear to the emperor that although they assembled to eat a communal meal, it was only to consume 'ordinary food'

I'm not saying the earliest Christians practiced the same eucharistic rituals as the later Catholic church, nor even that the death on the cross actually happened because -- although my own belief is obvious -- that is the question of the thread?

However the fact of the crucifixion seems to be accepted as one of the two authentic events of Jesus's life -- the other being his baptism by John the Baptist, the fact that earliest Christians almost certainly believed that it happened, at a time when some of the apostles and close followers of Jesus were still alive, holds more weight than a sentence from the Quran written 600 years after. IMO

I have tried to steer clear of the divinity of Christ, or even the resurrection. Again, my own beliefs are obvious, but it goes beyond the central topic of the death on the cross.

Peace
 
Last edited:
However the fact of the crucifixion seems to be accepted as one of the two authentic events of Jesus's life..

That is not at all surprising..
I don't think that "Jesus escaping death" was in the public domain.

"Jesus was not killed / crucified, but it appeared so" suggests that for some reason, Jesus did not go around
boasting that he had been saved from death.
..and then God "raised him up" [ ascension ].

This left the uninformed believing all kinds of things.
As Christianity evolved in a politically turbulent time, there were many factions,
and the final creed was shaped by non-Jews, some with strong political views.
 
......The fact that earliest Christians almost certainly believed that it happened, at a time when some of the apostles and close followers of Jesus were still alive, holds more weight than a sentence from the Quran written 600 years after. IMO
Peace

Ahhh, but you are not a Muslim ;).

Peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Greetings, @Grandad, and thank you for this thoughtful and informed reply.

To come to the latter part first:
The verse is thus understood as referring to Jesus’ direct ascension from the earthly realm to the Presence of God without the intervening event of death. The Quran is clear elsewhere, however, that Jesus is not Divine (5:116). Logically, then, he must share in human mortality. Islamic tradition holds Jesus will return near the end times to fight the Antichrist (al-Dajjāl) and will thereafter eventually die and be resurrected with the rest of humanity. Cf. 19:33, where Jesus affirms his future death and “resurrection,” saying, Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am raised alive (ubʿathu ḥayyan, from baʿatha).’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’; my emphasis).
Here Islam and Christianity part company.

The reading of the Qur'an offered allows both the Christian and the Muslim Scriptures to be true, and the context of that I think is well reasoned in the scholarly documents I offered. I am happy with that.

I can also understand how traditional commentaries evolve, and the conditions under which they do so.

I have provided an exegesis of Al-Nisa that nevertheless stands, despite objections. Neither of us are obliged to accept the other's argument, of course. I'm not trying to prove anyone 'wrong', just that there are other interpretations.

This āyah (Al-Ma'ida 17) is a denial of the claim that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is divine. The denial is issued with reference to the Exalted’s creative and destructive power. He – who cannot destroy Himself – can easily destroy Yeshua, who is but a creature. It says nothing about actually killing him.
I reference this because there is actually no argument here. We do not say that God died on the Cross.

Peace be with you.
 
..We do not say that God died on the Cross.

No .. you say that Jesus was crucified [ ie. killed by hanging on a cross ]

..and then, of course, you say that Jesus is One of three:
God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit — three distinct persons sharing one essence.

..so :)
 
..and then, of course, you say that Jesus is One of three:
Well IMO the Christ is one of three -- as God as Father applies to human existence -- and the term goes beyond the simple meaning of the Jewish messiah/anointed one to mean the bridge between God and man, because God's creation is also a neutron star and a fish and a blade of grass.

The Christ is the human expression of God, as Emmanuel: God With Us. God shows us Himself as perfect Man. So it's never so simple.

IMO!

But the point is if Muslims know virtually nothing of the flesh and blood living Christ of the gospels but just the 'skeleton' Jesus of the Quran, are they equipped to lecture Christians about their religion?

It's not possible to grasp the nature of Jesus Christ without reading the gospels, imo.
Understood this applies much less to @Grandad and @muhammad_isa than to the majority of Muslims

More here:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19889/#post-352244
 
Last edited:
But the point is if Muslims know virtually nothing of the flesh and blood living Christ of the gospels but just the 'skeleton' Jesus of the Quran, are they equipped to lecture Christians about their religion?

I don't know about "their" religion, but about the nature of God .. absolutely!

..and as God is One with no partner, any religion that claims otherwise, however many pieces/parts it entails,
is simply misbelief.
The Qur'an tells us that some people of old claimed that men were divine / God .. nothing new then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top