What phrase?
Quran says that Jesus Christ died a natural death.
- Thread starter Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi
- Start date
Is this the phrase you mean?
There have been a few quite heated discussions about it on this site.
I personally believe the idea is preposterous, considering the personality of Jesus -- that he lied to his followers and stood there laughing while another was crucified in his place. I believe it is taken from the apocrypha.
What is your take?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Treatise_of_the_Great_Seth
The Treatise of the Great Seth is written from the first-person perspective of Jesus.
The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance."
… Some Gnostics believed Jesus was not a man but a docetistic spirit, and therefore could not die. From the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons:
For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death... It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns... And I was laughing at their ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily Gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes Gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
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.
@Ismat What are your thoughts?
If the Wikipedia comments are not acceptable, the passages can be checked right here at IO, as we are proud to host the most complete library of New Testament apocrypha on the internet:
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/
The Treatise of the Great Seth is written from the first-person perspective of Jesus.
The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance."
… Some Gnostics believed Jesus was not a man but a docetistic spirit, and therefore could not die. From the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons:
For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death... It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns... And I was laughing at their ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily Gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes Gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
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.
@Ismat What are your thoughts?
If the Wikipedia comments are not acceptable, the passages can be checked right here at IO, as we are proud to host the most complete library of New Testament apocrypha on the internet:
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/
Last edited:
The Qur'an says nothing about Jesus lying, or standing by laughing.
All that is said is that "it appeared as if he was crucified".
There are a number of scenarios, as you know .. including the "swoon hypothesis".
Naturally, an orthodox Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, as core beliefs depend on it.
i.e. Jesus, a Jew, becomes a saviour / messiah due to dying and ressurrecting
Well, not just orthodox Christians, but also the majority of scholars and historians.
In fact the only reason to try to construct theories about how Jesus did not die on the cross, seems to be to support one single sentence in the Quran:
It starts with what the Quran says, and then sets out to find ways t0 justify it, in order to prove the Quran true, imo
However, IMO all scenarios presented are highly unlikely, based on the simple fact that it would require that Jesus, a sinless man of virgin birth (according to Quran) would deliberately deceive his followers, either before or after his crucifixion -- at least according to how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament? Then must come the task of justifying how to disregard the NT passages that disagree with the Quran about Jesus, while allowing the ones that seem to support it?
(edited ...)
Last edited:
This thread lists basically all the words and actions of Jesus as written in the Quran.
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19889/
He (the Quran Jesus) is not a convincing figure, imo
The Quran Jesus is really just a shadow of the New Testament Jesus, and several of his actions seem to be drawn from earlier existing NT apocrypha, such as the bringing to life of clay birds. The Quran Jesus appears to exist only to insist repeatedly that he is subservient to Allah -- that anything he does is only with Allah's permission
(edited ...)
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19889/
He (the Quran Jesus) is not a convincing figure, imo
The Quran Jesus is really just a shadow of the New Testament Jesus, and several of his actions seem to be drawn from earlier existing NT apocrypha, such as the bringing to life of clay birds. The Quran Jesus appears to exist only to insist repeatedly that he is subservient to Allah -- that anything he does is only with Allah's permission
(edited ...)
Last edited:
Clearly then, there is a difference of opinion.
It isn't that difficult to see how a Jewish messiah can become accepted by a non-Jewish community as something that Jesus isn't.
Namely, a god-man.
The New Testament writings were chosen by non-Jewish theologians.
It is basically true .. apart from the philosophical ramblings implying that Jesus is G-d.
Oh well .. we both agree that Jesus ascended to heaven "alive and well".
Let's leave it at that, shall we.
Traditional Christian doctrine says that the resurrected Christ ascended.
How does this relate to whether or not Jesus died on the cross, as accepted by most scholars and historians, including atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman?
You know what I think.
Scholars can only decide on the evidence presented before them.
That evidence suggests that Jesus was put on the cross and died.
Many scholars don't accept any evidence that he was seen again after that..
..why would that be?
I know that you can't accept that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross.
Let's say, for sake of argument that I believe that he did.
..and that G-d decided that he would come alive again as a miracle.
Does that change anything for me?
No. I cannot accept that a man is G-d .. and that a man can bear people's sins etc.
I can accept that miracles happen.
I can accept that Jesus is a very special person .. but even Jesus prayed to G-d.
But whether or not Jesus died on the cross has nothing to do with whether people think Jesus is God? It's a separate issue?
The Arians believed he died on the cross. Newton and other Unitarians believe he died on the cross? People who don't believe Jesus existed at all, obviously don't believe he died on the cross.
But the fact remains that the only real reason to believe Jesus existed but did not die on the cross is to justify Quran 4:157–158 -- a single line?
@RJM, We all know Wikipedia can not be authentic, there are anonymous writers, let that be as it is…the scriptures are considered as authentic so let focus on scripture as i said earlier and is not a bad idea…you agree?
My simple question was…if someone claim that it was someone else nailed on the cross…prove it from either Bible or Quran as both these scriptures deal with this very topic.
Quran says “He was made to appear to them like one crucified” (means he got unconscious and the centurions thought he is dead…amazingly! Bible says “When the Centurions turn toward Jesus to break his legs…they found him already dead” (John 19), also Pontus Pilate did not believe that Jesus could die in such a short time on the cross (Mark 15:44). So I am with the Cristians side saying yes Jesus was indeed nailed on the Cross but he did not die on the cross. I also said earlier…that there are more than 30 evidences from Bible to justify Jesus did not die on the cross…am I denying Bible or even Quran? They both testifying the same…but if you want run away from the scriptures and follow wikis…its your choice.
Now…later part of this verse it is written, “Bal Rafaullaha ilaihi” Allah take him up to Himself…(not mentioned bodily…as it is or alive), here it is mention “Rafa” in Arabic it means “Degree of Rank”, in other verse Quran explains that (Quran 58:11) Rafa mean degree of Rank that God give to His beloved servants (hear in this case Jesus). If this was an event of Physical accession to heaven for Jesus…then it create a contradiction in the Quran…where…in Chapter Bani Israel (17:94) God rejected this type of ascension when People of Mecca asked Muhammad PBUH to ascend up to heaven…
“Or thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger.’
So what is my thoughts? If you read carefully one verse and tally with other verse the meaning will come out clear, if you do not tally with other relevant verse they you may fall in to contradictions…
Do you dispute any of the passages from wiki that I posted above in the thread? If so, which ones?
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs (John 19:33)
However the next line reads:
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water (John 19:34)
Read whole chapter: John 19 KJV
In other words, they needed to be sure, and so they pierced his side with a lance. They were Roman soldiers, they knew about crucifixion and lances and death. They needed to make sure he was dead, so they ran him through with a lance, just to make sure. They would have ended up in bad trouble if they had let Jesus live.
Last edited:
Well, to be fair, language being what it is, the Quran is open to interpretation (as is any text) and so there are differing opinions as to what is being said.
Nor do non-Muslims accept the Quran as inerrant, infallible, or authoritative, so citing the text is no argument, in that sense. As a non-Muslim, I have my own views on its sources.
Yes, He was dead.
Quite. But the centurion assured him that He was (15:44-45), so there is no question in Mark, who has already reported the death (15:37).
The Romans were quite proficient. Pilate is obviously asking "You are sure he is dead?" because the bodies were being brought down early, because of the Jewish Sabbath. The other two were still alive, so they broke the legs. The spear to the side is akin to 'the legionnaire's cut', a stab through the side to puncture the heart, given by the Romans to despatch the enemy, or those on their own side beyond medical assistance.
Rest assured there is no way the Romans would have let the Jews take away a living rebel.
You misinterpret us here, I fear.
You may think so, but I doubt it ...
I don't get this.
As far as I'm aware, the Romans did not find him "guilty" of treason.
I think it is possible that that could have happened.
..but what do I know?
G-d knows, and it is G-d to whom we ask for forgiveness.
Islam board?
It's quite simple.
Pilate delivers Him for crucifixion. There's no way out of that, but the grave.
And, if He's not dead, He's pulled off a monumental deception ...
I don't think so.
It is Orthodox Christianity that hinges around the death of Jesus.
It is not Jesus who created any deception, but those who mistakenly create something unintended, imo.