Islam's view about Jesus'crucifixion and the idea of salvation(2)

[dailogue is the best]

In his book, Crucifixion or Crucifiction, Ahmad Deedat presents thirty points, extracted from the Christian Scriptures themselves, prove in a very convincing way that Jesus’ life was not taken on the cross. Deedat shows that Jesus did not die on the cross because he was fastened to the cross only three hours, and this time is too short for a crucified man to die in (163). I will state, here, only four points from those points Deedat presents as strong proofs against Jesus’ crucifixion. One point is that "Jews doubted his death: they suspected that he had escaped death on the cross. That he was alive (165)." That is why, God says in the holy Quran: "… but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not (4: 157). Another point presented by Deedat is the fact that Jesus was buried in a very "big roomy chamber: close at hand, and big and airy for willing hands to come to the rescue. Providence was out to keep Jesus alive (165)." Furthermore, "Mary Magdalene was not afraid on recognizing Jesus because she had seen signs of life before [when they were burying him]. She was looking for a Jesus who was alive (167)." Those convincing arguments are only few from others presented by Deedat and which remove absolutely the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion.

But if Deedat was able to prove that Jesus’ life was not taken on the cross according to the Bible, so what is the origin of this idea? Who is the real founder of this idea and why? Actually, if one looks for the real background of the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion, he will find out that Paul is the real founder of this idea.

As against the teaching of the Master (Jesus) that salvation only comes through keeping of the commandments (Matthew 19: 16-17).

Paul nails the law and the commandments to the cross (Colonsians 2: 14), and claims that salvation can only be obtained through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15: 14) (qtd. in Deedat, 11)

Thus, Paul is the one who says of Jesus’ crucifixion in order to make him saviour of humans’ sins! Paul believes that salvation cannot be achieved only through Jesus’ blood. At that time, the story of the Original Sin was so spread in the sense that it was one of the main Jewish religious truths. Paul also adopted this idea. In his letter to the Romans (5: 12), Paul says: "It was through one man that sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus death pervaded the whole human race inasmuch as all men have sinned (qtd. in Peters, 9)." Accordingly, "It was under this story, or myth, that Christianity adopted largely under the influence of Paul in order to posit evil and thereby assume the requisities of divine redemption (Al Faruqi, 20)." Thus, from that time until now, Christians had been believing that in order to be saved, you have not to disturb yourself by making good deeds, for it is so enough to believe in Jesus’ crucifixion to be saved. No matter, how good you are, you will not be saved unless you believe in Jesus as a Saviour. And if not, then "… all your good deed, "says the Christian dogmatist, "are like fifty rages" (Isaiah 64: 6) (qtd. in Deedat, 10)." How their salvation is easy!! Christians do not need to follow morals and principles in their life in order to be saved. Their salvation is restricted in Jesus’ crucifixion.



But, what does reason and logic say about that idea? Is it reasonable and logical? Of course, it is not. How can a human mind believe that a man who has killed, tortured, destroyed and done very shameful and horrible things is going to be saved at the end only because he believes in Jesus’ crucifixion?

Deedat says, directing Christians: "since you are Christians, you are making sins, and, then, God will punish his son, or He punished him and it is over now!?" After this note, Deedat puts many exclamation questions: "Is this love? Suppose that a person has killed one of your family members, will you punish him by killing one of your sons or your unique son (if you have only one son)?! And you call this love? Is it possible? This is, in fact, a wrong conception of justice and morality (The Debate of the Century, 91-92)."

Through the Quran, God reveals to us that salvation is achieved only through good deeds as His apostle, Jesus, said to a Jewish when he asked him for a salvation:





And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one that is God: but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19: 16-17) (qtd. in Deedat, Christ in Islam, 91)



So, Jesus showed to the Jewish that the keeping of the commandments is the only way to God and a key to salvation. God affirms what Jesus, and all His apostles say about that matter. God says: "whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a new life a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their action (16: 97)." So, one will be saved according to his deeds, and not according to something else. Everyone is responsible for his deeds and no one will save the other. God reveals: "And what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? 18. Again, what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? 19 (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) ought for another: for the Command, that Day, will be (wholly) with God (82: 17-19)"

 

[Quahom1]

Dialogue, Welcome.

I know you mean well, however the code of conduct prohibits condemnation/chastisement of any faith, or any religion, regardless of how "gently" it is done, especially in the forum area dedicated to such a religion or faith.

Therefore, though I find your take on Christian beginnings fascintating, I believe it best be served on the Monotheism forum. You would not want some well intentioned Christian jumping into the Islam forum, pointing out the faults of that faith, and trying to show the way, now would you?

I wouldn't.

v/r

Q

 

[smkolins]

Another way to reconsile the Qur'anic statements about the crucifiction of Jesus with the history of Christianity is to suppose that the reality of Jesus was untouched by the physical act. Indeed the Bible itself is full of references to the fact that the material world isn't what is important. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see is a warning of understanding - but who doesn't have ears or eyes that work?! Understanding is a spiritual thing. Jesus is a spiritual reality, and those stuck seeing him that way would seem to have ended His life, but His life did not end.

 

[iBrian]

dailogue, do you know that "dialogue" may usually be taken as representing a two-way conversation? Sometimes reading your posts, I see a one-way monologue.

It would be great if you could disprove that perception by genuinely engaging in discussion with other members, according to your personal beliefs, thoughts, and words, rather than present the appearance of someone here for the sole purpose of pulling out a soapbox. We tend to pull soapboxes away from people here.

 

[InLove]

Peace to All Here:​

​

I seem to be having some formatting problems, so if the text looks strange, please try and overlook--I am working on the problem. ​

​

Originally submitted by dialogue is the best

​

​

Thus, from that time until now, Christians had been believing that in order to be saved, you have not to disturb yourself by making good deeds, for it is so enough to believe in Jesus’ crucifixion to be saved. No matter, how good you are, you will not be saved unless you believe in Jesus as a Saviour. And if not, then "… all your good deed, "says the Christian dogmatist, "are like fifty rages" (Isaiah 64: 6) (qtd. in Deedat, 10)." How their salvation is easy!! Christians do not need to follow morals and principles in their life in order to be saved. Their salvation is restricted in Jesus’ crucifixion.

​

This is my paraphrase of the following Scripture passage--it is referenced so you can find it if you are interested: Just as faith without Love really can't be faith, so faith without deeds does not really exist. Action always follows true faith; this is the very nature of faith (James 1:14-25).​

Also, according to the Bible, Isaiah 64:6 reads: ​

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (NLT)​

​

I was wondering which version of Isaiah Deedat is citing? ​

​

Wish I had time to address more of your questions, but I must log our for a while--work to do.​

​

InPeace,​

InLove​

 

[InLove]

Hello Again, and Peace--

I was on my way to work, but I thought of this passage, which might be helpful to you, dialogue, in understanding the heart of Paul's teachings. (Please do not think I am proselytizing here--I am just responding to the questions you have brought up. ) I will post this quickly, and perhaps I can visit the board later on.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross! —Philippians 2:3-8​

​

​

Gotta go!​

InPeace,​

InLove​

 

[Faithfulservant]

InLove.. I had posted this long response to Dialogue (I tend to be longwinded at times) I lost the post by hitting the back button I got frustrated and logged.. but in my post I had put Isaiah 64:6 in it and I am so glad that you posted it because I think its very important in Christianity to point out to those who believe that we "work" our way to heaven and Gods grace.

 

[Postmaster]

but in my post I had put Isaiah 64:6 in it and I am so glad that you posted it because I think its very important in Christianity to point out to those who believe that we "work" our way to heaven and Gods grace.

Exactly, that’s the key towards Christianity, earning are ways to paradise, by passion, I agree. My life would be easier for if I convert to Islam, but hey my heart doesn't agree with the faith. We believe true in the bible that Rich people won’t enter the kingdom of God, and one monogamous love, and can't marry once married women and that no violent acts can be justified because we believe in loving our enemy and we believe in unlimited forgiveness.. Why would god let us suffer like this if it's so pointless? Maybe we really get to paradise because we earn it by taking away the animal out of our lives

 

[InLove]

Hello, and Peace to All Here

Originally stated by Faithfulservant

InLove.. I had posted this long response to Dialogue (I tend to be longwinded at times) I lost the post by hitting the back button I got frustrated and logged.. but in my post I had put Isaiah 64:6 in it and I am so glad that you posted it because I think its very important in Christianity to point out to those who believe that we "work" our way to heaven and Gods grace.

Hi, Faithfulservant--

I understand that frustration, and I think that those who would criticize the Bible (O.T. and N.T.) should probably try reading it first. If there are those who do not think it is authentic or does not have substance, I don't mind at all hearing their opinions.

I am so tired right now--I would like to write more. Anyway, I am glad you appreciated what the actual Scripture said. I suppose I will be told tomorrow why I should not believe it?

G'Nite All--
InPeace,
InLove

 

[Bandit]

do you know that "dialogue" may usually be taken as representing a two-way conversation? Sometimes reading your posts, I see a one-way monologue.

LOL . I see that sometimes too. I think they call it HIT & RUN? especially when they never come back to the scene.
I am sure I am guilty of this sometimes too, but I try to at least respond with something a little further. Even if it is simple, 'I dont want to discuss this any more' .

 

[smkolins]

LOL . I see that sometimes too. I think they call it HIT & RUN? especially when they never come back to the scene.
I am sure I am guilty of this sometimes too, but I try to at least respond with something a little further. Even if it is simple, 'I dont want to discuss this any more' .

Regardless. I do see far more interest in reacting to extremes than middle-paths. Everyone is perfectly willing to die to fight whether Jesus was or was not crucified but neither side has a moment for a good spirited middle path. All insights from that middle ground go lost in the heat of nothing but extremes.

 

[InLove]

Hello--Salaam--Shalom--Namaste--
Peace to All Here--

I understand what you mean, Bandit--some people intend to "hit and run". But I think that sometimes not everyone has the opportunity to come back as soon as we think they should. I, myself, have been in the position, on occasion, to not know how exactly to ask a question, and sometimes I offend--I hope not much--it all depends on the receivers of my questions (and how much I know about how to ask them).

Perhaps, just maybe--we need to look a little deeper--all of us. Maybe we need to see that not everyone has the opportunity to operate within our normal parameters--what we deem acceptable. I know I am going out on a limb here, and I might get into a little trouble....oh well.

If we are followers of Christ, then we are to seek to understand his message of mercy. We are to see beyond what is obvious to most.

I may be (wait--let me check--yes, I am) going out on a limb here, but I trust you will either understand now, or come to understand later.

I am holding my breath as I send this out.

InPeace,
InChrist,
InLove

 

[Bandit]

Regardless. I do see far more interest in reacting to extremes than middle-paths. Everyone is perfectly willing to die to fight whether Jesus was or was not crucified but neither side has a moment for a good spirited middle path. All insights from that middle ground go lost in the heat of nothing but extremes.

this is very true smkolins. at the same time you have to remember that without the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus, we do not have Christianity & from what I can see that is where I choose to put my hope & build my foundation upon, in that I too will be raised from corruptible to incoruptible, when I leave this mortal world because of Jesus & Calvary, the same way God raised up Jesus.

So yah, I am going to live, fight & die for Jesus...but the fight I have is not a physical fight, but doing what is right in my life to the best of my ability.

Now, that would kind of be like a Christian going about there view toward Islam & saying the Miraaj never happened with Mohammed. I dont say things or even suggest things like that to people who I know hold certain beliefs very sacred. wether it happened or did not happen, i dont set out to try & prove that it did or did not happen.
This is something we learn not to do over time.

On the other hand the Muslims & Jews present some very good points according to some of the Christian doctrine out there. However, the bible has still not been proven wrong, so it is more like a lack of understanding from both sides, not on the bible, but in the doctrines men present.
The story of the wages of sin is death goes all the way through the bible & the way Jesus has been presented in the crucifixion does not add up, the way it has been taught for years.
However, I have to side with those who believe in Jesus for remission of sins, reguardless of the way the teach it, because that is why He went to Calvary & the mystery behind it all is too complex for most to see it the way I see it.

So what I am supposed to do? I keep silent on the big picture & for very good reasons & keep hoping...& listening & waiting & just accept that God must have it this way for a reason & that He keeps certain things hidden on purpose.

some of these topics we talk about are pointless anyway & here is why...

all, every & none, means all & every & none, until we need it to mean something different according to our belief.
the prepositions for, in, by & through, means what they mean, but in religion they tend to have a different meaning when some need them to.

Then we have the mix & match religion. Run to all ends of the earth- Mix a little this & a little that for some sicientific miracle potion & wait & see if it is really going to rain or not.

anyway, i feel the most important part of a discussion on beliefs is getting UNDERSTANDING for why people see what they see. if we can't at the least try, to do that with each other, then talking about beliefs is a big waste of time & that is when we can fall short. IMO

 

[Bandit]

Hello--Salaam--Shalom--Namaste--
Peace to All Here--

I understand what you mean, Bandit--some people intend to "hit and run". But I think that sometimes not everyone has the opportunity to come back as soon as we think they should. I, myself, have been in the position, on occasion, to not know how exactly to ask a question, and sometimes I offend--I hope not much--it all depends on the receivers of my questions (and how much I know about how to ask them).

Perhaps, just maybe--we need to look a little deeper--all of us. Maybe we need to see that not everyone has the opportunity to operate within our normal parameters--what we deem acceptable. I know I am going out on a limb here, and I might get into a little trouble....oh well.

If we are followers of Christ, then we are to seek to understand his message of mercy. We are to see beyond what is obvious to most.

I may be (wait--let me check--yes, I am) going out on a limb here, but I trust you will either understand now, or come to understand later.

I am holding my breath as I send this out.

InPeace,
InChrist,
InLove

I know InLove! This was not a HIT & RUN like I thought. But we do get them around here sometimes. i totally agree we will seek to understand His mercy & the things that are not obvious to most.
Even what would be the most least obvious, because that is how God operates quite often. Very wise there.

You can stop holding your breath now. I got the message
Not everyone can be at a computer when they want & need to be.

 

[InLove]

Whew! Thanks, Bandit!

InPeace,
InLove

 

[smkolins]

this is very true smkolins. at the same time you have to remember that without the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus, we do not have Christianity & from what I can see that is where I choose to put my hope & build my foundation upon, in that I too will be raised from corruptible to incoruptible, when I leave this mortal world because of Jesus & Calvary, the same way God raised up Jesus....

We are much in agreement.

some of these topics we talk about are pointless anyway & here is why...

all, every & none, means all & every & none, until we need it to mean something different according to our belief.
the prepositions for, in, by & through, means what they mean, but in religion they tend to have a different meaning when some need them to.

Then we have the mix & match religion. Run to all ends of the earth- Mix a little this & a little that for some sicientific miracle potion & wait & see if it is really going to rain or not.

anyway, i feel the most important part of a discussion on beliefs is getting UNDERSTANDING for why people see what they see. if we can't at the least try, to do that with each other, then talking about beliefs is a big waste of time & that is when we can fall short. IMO

The idea of the confusion because of a mix of this and that is, from my point of view, rather a necessary point of view for Christians these days. Since there is no authority left among the institutions of Christianity - that there are denominations representing pretty much any stance one can take and they are irreconcilable by administrative necessity - there can be little left except for viewing the rest as confusion, whatever the rest may be. If it weren't other it would be reconsiled and it can't be reconsiled. Fortunately, this history of confusion isn't necessary, from my point of view.

Sorry it took a while to get back - but thanks.

 

[Bandit]

We are much in agreement.



The idea of the confusion because of a mix of this and that is, from my point of view, rather a necessary point of view for Christians these days. Since there is no authority left among the institutions of Christianity - that there are denominations representing pretty much any stance one can take and they are irreconcilable by administrative necessity - there can be little left except for viewing the rest as confusion, whatever the rest may be. If it weren't other it would be reconsiled and it can't be reconsiled. Fortunately, this history of confusion isn't necessary, from my point of view.

Sorry it took a while to get back - but thanks.

i totally agree- a mix of this & a mix of that makes confusion
& the history of confusion is not necessary.

 

[Saltmeister]

I think it's actually interesting to see what this Muslim has to say about the Christian Gospel. No, I am not trying to think fun of him, but with all this he demonstrates sound understanding of the Gospel. His arguments are fairly accurate, but I think there are several things he should know about to understand our religion a bit better.

After all, this forum is supposed to be a place where people can learn about each other's religions. My intention is to point out some problems in his arguments and resolve some misconceptions he may have about our faith.

First, I'll start with a few comments.

But if Deedat was able to prove that Jesus’ life was not taken on the cross according to the Bible, so what is the origin of this idea? Who is the real founder of this idea and why? Actually, if one looks for the real background of the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion, he will find out that Paul is the real founder of this idea.

Actually, Paul couldn't be the real founder of the idea because his epistles wouldn't have been accepted by the Early Church if they disagreed with what other Christians believed. There were also many preachers in the Early Church that came before Paul. They were persecuted by Paul because they taught that Jesus was our Saviour.

As against the teaching of the Master (Jesus) that salvation only comes through keeping of the commandments (Matthew 19: 16-17).

Paul nails the law and the commandments to the cross (Colonsians 2: 14), and claims that salvation can only be obtained through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15: 14) (qtd. in Deedat, 11)

The Law brought by Moses was fulfilled by the Gospel. The Gospel's teachings provide something that the Law could not provide. The Law was a "moral code" that was intended to lead people to righteousness by controlling people's minds. It demanded conformity to its moral code. Unfortunately, it brought out the worst out of people in terms of character. The Law failed humanity.

The Law failing was not God's fault. God actually made human beings so that their behaviour came entirely from their good and evil instincts regardless of what laws or moral codes were given. This is so that nobody can be "righteous" without God first giving them the power to do so. It's also so that nobody can brag or boast about being able to follow God's Law.

. . . In his letter to the Romans (5: 12), Paul says: "It was through one man that sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus death pervaded the whole human race inasmuch as all men have sinned (qtd. in Peters, 9)." Accordingly, "It was under this story, or myth, that Christianity adopted largely under the influence of Paul in order to posit evil and thereby assume the requisities of divine redemption (Al Faruqi, 20)." Thus, from that time until now, Christians had been believing that in order to be saved, you have not to disturb yourself by making good deeds, for it is so enough to believe in Jesus’ crucifixion to be saved. No matter, how good you are, you will not be saved unless you believe in Jesus as a Saviour. . . . How their salvation is easy!! Christians do not need to follow morals and principles in their life in order to be saved. Their salvation is restricted in Jesus’ crucifixion.

Righteousness doesn't come from following moral codes. If a person has to follow a system of moral codes, it really means that that person is not really of good character. People who are of good character don't need to follow a system of moral codes because they are righteous by their nature.

This is why Christians believe what they believe.

But, what does reason and logic say about that idea? Is it reasonable and logical? Of course, it is not. How can a human mind believe that a man who has killed, tortured, destroyed and done very shameful and horrible things is going to be saved at the end only because he believes in Jesus’ crucifixion?

Christ's sacrifice was a ritual that served as a signal for God to open for us "a path toward holiness and righteousness." There's more to it than that, so you would have to read the Bible more to understand why this concept we have is not as stupid as it may seem!!!! It seems bizarre, but there's more to it.

Again, it's another step to understanding our faith, which is the aim of this forum. It is not "he performed the ritual and so we are saved if we simply believe" but "he performed the ritual and if we choose to follow the path he opened for us we will be saved."

In simple terms, he opened a path for us. If we follow that path, we are saved.

. . . God says: "whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a new life a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their action (16: 97)." So, one will be saved according to his deeds, and not according to something else. Everyone is responsible for his deeds and no one will save the other.

Yes, deeds are important in the Christian Gospel, but they are not deeds from a system of moral codes. They are deeds that are intrinsic to our personality and character.

Human Nature, Good and Evil and Moral Codes
I've done a bit of reading on the Epistles, and I am hoping that it will help not only Muslims understand our beliefs a bit better but also so that Christians can too. Perhaps other non-Christians can understand it too even if they can't accept what we believe.

I'm hoping what I've read might help.

Okay, what makes a person righteous? Is it by following the laws God gives us? Not quite. God's laws are based on what we would intuitively know to be right or wrong, so it's merely confirmation of the bright and dark side of human behaviour.

In a lot of religions it's believed that the rightness or wrongness of human behaviour should be measured on so-called morals, doctrines and "principles." It's believed that if you follow these so-called systems of "morals and ethics" you are righteous. Otherwise you're corrupt.

The Gospel (by Gospel I mean New Testament), in many places says otherwise, and it's got nothing to do with a so-called Redeemer or Saviour. It's not just Paul. It teaches that human behaviour is something intrinsic or inherent in our human nature. It is so deeply ingrained in our being that our character can't be judged by a so-called "system of morals and ethics."

Human behaviour comes from instincts. Good and evil are a result of instincts. It's not just a human thing, God and the angels He created have them too. Good instincts (virtues) are things like love, patience, kindness, generosity, humility and honesty. Evil instincts (vices) are things like hatred, selfishness, arrogance, greed, lust and deceit. The instincts we follow are part of our character.

human nature => instincts => vices/virtures => morality/immorality

Good behaviour is a result of our virtues. Bad behaviour is the result of our vices. In other words, morality is the result of good instincts and immorality the result of our evil instincts.

Purely good people have only good instincts, no evil instincts. They are like heavenly angels to those around them. Purely evil people have only evil instincts, no good instincts. They are like devils and demons, destroying everything in their path. At the moment, our human nature is a mixture of good and evil.

People of good character are dominated by their good instincts. Those of bad character are dominated by their evil instincts. We all have the same instincts, but our character and personality are a result of some instincts dominating and some being dormant.

We are not just social beings but also beings motivated by sentiment, desires, passions and emotions. It is part of our natural existence.

So why don't we (Christians) believe in "moral codes?" It's because understanding and controlling our instincts are more important than following rules. It is our instincts that make us either holy, unholy, clean, unclean, righteous or corrupt. They constitute our character.

So . . . we have a good reason to believe what we believe.

Why Do We Believe in Christ?
No matter what we do we can't get rid of our evil instincts. That is, we can't get rid of our bad character. Do we have to get rid of it? Do we really need to be perfect?

Yes, we do need to get rid of these things. Our evil instincts are redundant. Useless. They destroy our lives. They serve no constructive purpose. God didn't give it to us. We've got it because Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree.

But what's God going to do? Adam was given a choice, so likewise we get a choice too. God sends Christ to perform that magnificent ritual, thereby opening for us a path to His kingdom. The only question is how to find that path and stay on it.

Path To Holiness: By Faith, Hope and Love
The Gospel of "original sin" and "redemption by Christ" isn't exactly Paul's idea. Peter, James and John talk about it too, so it's a universal concept within the Christian Gospel.

Peter talks about hope, James talks about faith and John talks about love. In his letter "James" in the NT, James talks about how faith is accompanied by deeds. Paul talks about how we must put to death our "evil instincts." Peter talks about it too. James explains how the tongue can start conflicts and fuel hatred.

Paul's message about love in 1 Corinthians 13 is accompanied by what John says about love in 1 John.

They all tell us to turn away and withdraw from the "evil instincts" while at the same time reinforcing our "good instincts." This is what brings a person to life in the Kingdom of God.

Is Jesus the Messiah and Saviour? Paul certainly upholds this view. According to Peter, "the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." (1 Peter 2:7). 1 John 3:4-5 actually talks about how the Son of God takes away sins!!! John even says that "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1). They all confirm that He is Messiah and Saviour.

There's something else. They all stress the importance of faith in some form or another.

Faith, hope and love, coupled with our good instincts keeps us on the path to holiness that Christ offers. It is not righteousness by works. It is righteousness by faith, righteousness by us following our good instincts, by us having hope that we will reach God, and by love. It is righteousness by us choosing to allow God to condition us into having all these things, therefore making us holy beings.

faith + hope + love + our good instincts = synergy of righteousness

See? We don't need a moral code at all. Faith, hope and love work together to bring out the goodness God imparted into us when He created us.

What we mean by "original sin" is corruption of the human nature with "evil instincts." This is what we mean by sin. It's not the act of doing evil, but the fact that we have evil within us. The purpose of Christ is to save us from the evil, destructive forces of our evil instincts.

Conclusion: Yes, This is How It All Works
It sounds bizarre and weird for us to think this way, but actually it doesn't sound so stupid after all. All we need to do is read some Scripture, especially the epistles, and all this stuff will be clear to us all.

I think "salvation" is probably an overused word. I think sometimes we use it at the wrong places, wrong times and for the wrong reasons. When we talk about "being saved" they usually don't have a clue what we're talking about. We often don't do our homework properly. Hopefully Christians, as well as non-Christians, can finally understand this a lot better.

Anyway, I just thought I might contribute something to this thread and "add my two cents."

 

[inhumility]

The topic is very important but its title should have been. What is reality? Did Jesus die on cross? or he did not die on cross, he was delivered alive from cross, was treated in the room-like tomb by his close disciples, thus he survived from death, migrated to 10 tribes of the Israel and died later at some point in the history.

It is very important for bringing unity in the Abrahamic religions i.e. Jews, Christians and the Muslims or if not possible at least understanding among the three.

Importance for the Jews

It is to be investigated as to why they tried to kill Jesus/Christ or put him on the cross. Were they politically motivated or due to some personal enmity or due to religious injunctions. Since they believed in Torah or the Old Testament as named by the Christians, and the Muslims also believe in Torah to an extant. The motive and the incidence of putting Jesus on cross should therefore be discussed in the Jewish board of the Forum .Anybody could take part in the discussion but references if any should be mainly from Torah the religious book of the Jews, not from the New Testament or Quran as Jews don’t believe in these books and reference to these books will be of no significance for them. The Jews have to state as to why they (or their elders in history) tried to kill an innocent person called Jesus. They should clear off their position in this respect.

Importance for the Christians

The incident of crucifixion and the events related to it should be discussed in the Christian Board and the arguments should be primarily based with reference to the testimony of the New Testament and the historic evidences if any.Giving arguments from Quran would be of little significance for Christians unless somebody first convinces Christians of authenticity of Quran.

Importance for the Muslims

This is also very important for the Muslims. All Muslims do not believe that Jesus (or Essa) died on cross or even he was put on cross, there are different interpretations and beliefs among the Muslims based on Quran or tradition. Resolving this issue could unite the Muslims also. This should be discussed in the Muslim/Islamic Board and the arguments should be primarily from Muslim scriptures Quran and Sunnah.

So to me this should be discussed in three Boards of the Forum for clear understanding.
​

Yours truly
inhumility

We unite in truth, by myths and fictions we are off the path.

This would be a useful interfaith dialogue, I think.

 

[iBrian]

This is one of those topics that I really should have closed at the beginning.

Although the question of the Islamic view of the life and death of Jesus can make for interesting discussion, this particular thread was continuing a rather unfortunate habit by a minority of Muslim members to push Muslim views on other religions here - an issue that has since been addressed.

I know we will address this question again later - in the meanwhile, better to close this thread and start afresh on a new discussion.