Did Jesus say he was God???

[F0uad]

I thought I straightend out all the context complaints. I have had a question for you for awhile bu can't remember why it was I wanted to know. Do the majority of middle Eastern Islamic nations speak an Arabic similar enough to understand each other?

Yes we do. Some words can be tricky time to time but listening to the context of the conversation helps.
O and there are more countries in Africa that speak Arabic then in the middle-east, just saying..

 

[1robin]

Yes we do. Some words can be tricky time to time but listening to the context of the conversation helps.
O and there are more countries in Africa that speak Arabic then in the middle-east, just saying..

I still can't for the life of me remember why I thought this important but one thing did occur to me. As I understand it the Quran is written in a kind of formal Arabic, and I hear claims (though they seem counter to Allah's purpose) that it must be read in this language to fully comprehend it. Can these countries we are talking about understand this form of Arabic sufficiently? Why is a language developed so late in human history and derived from Semitic roots thought to be Allah's language? These are not the reasons I wanted to know this originally and I will post them if I can ever remember them but these are things I wished to know as well.

 

[F0uad]

I still can't for the life of me remember why I thought this important but one thing did occur to me. As I understand it the Quran is written in a kind of formal Arabic, and I hear claims (though they seem counter to Allah's purpose) that it must be read in this language to fully comprehend it. Can these countries we are talking about understand this form of Arabic sufficiently? Why is a language developed so late in human history and derived from Semitic roots thought to be Allah's language? These are not the reasons I wanted to know this originally and I will post them if I can ever remember them but these are things I wished to know as well.

I don't think i full understand your questions but ill try to answer them anyway..

The Quran as we have it now is in the Quraysh dialect from the tribe that Mohammed(saws) came from. Yes the Quran has to be read in its classical Arabic the "Quraysh" dialect or one of the other 7 Ahruf's to understand the full meaning since one single Arabic word can have several meanings this is the same for Greek, Hebrew and other languages. Most people who live in North-Africa and the Arabic speaking countries can understand it but they still will have problems with certain words that's why i said they have to look at the context to understand those words.

Which purpose are you talking about?

 

[George-ananda]

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.

In Hindu thought not only is Jesus divine but so are we. The only difference is masters like Jesus are closer to realizing their divinity.

 

[1robin]

I don't think i full understand your questions but ill try to answer them anyway..

That is probably because i can't remember the context I originally had for the question.

The Quran as we have it now is in the Quraysh dialect from the tribe that Mohammed(saws) came from. Yes the Quran has to be read in its classical Arabic the "Quraysh" dialect or one of the other 7 Ahruf's to understand the full meaning since one single Arabic word can have several meanings this is the same for Greek, Hebrew and other languages. Most people who live in North-Africa and the Arabic speaking countries can understand it but they still will have problems with certain words that's why i said they have to look at the context to understand those words.

Which purpose are you talking about?

If a benevolent God truly wanted to reveal a saving message to mankind does it not follow that he would make that message as universally understandable as possible. For example the Bible looses virtually no meaning in translation. Of course a little is lost but the core truths necessary to get to heaven remain in tact. I would say that a message "claimed" to be for mankind invented by man would show men's cultural bias. This would depend on how much Qur'an is lost in translation and I am certainly not capable of evaluating that meaningfully.

I have another question, this one stumped Shabirr a little. The most universal modern interpretation of the "made it appear they crucified him" Quranic teaching is that Christ was crucified but did not die on the cross and later Allah raised him to himself out of the tomb. The problem is this: The evidence for a dying and rising messiah is the same in both cases. IOW Allah created a specific set of circumstances where every apostle and followers of Christ believed he had died and risen. I do not this this interpretation sustainable with all the prophecies and rock removed from the tomb etc... however that is what the most accepted Islamic interpretation is. Why did Allah create every detail needed to start the "false" belief of Christianity and then condemn it? Many point to the "greatest of schemers" label and one of Muhammad's followers who said he would not feel safe from Allah's schemes with one foot in paradise, but there is little need for this. Allah if he did this did exactly what was necessary to start the greatest false religion in human history and then condemned it. Did he not see what would happen because of what he did? Did he do so any way? Was he restricted to only acting in way? What is the Islamic response to this?

 

[1robin]

In Hindu thought not only is Jesus divine but so are we. The only difference is masters like Jesus are closer to realizing their divinity.

The book that is the overwhelming source for knowledge of Christ also recorded that we are not divine and it is sinful to claim we are. My point is that the very same book where we learn of Christ also teaches against what you claim in no uncertain terms, how do you derive faith in Christ but not include what he said about us?

In your signature line says Brahman is the only truth. What is Brahman? Is it truth its self. The statement only the truth is true is redundant. Is it a person or teaching? If so is the statement "Brahman is the only truth" part of it. If so then it is again redundant and if not it it's self is not true. Forgive my criticism but I find philosophic principles quite revealing. My favorite is the materialist, determinist, atheists who say there is no absolute truth. Does that include that statement? Do you see the paradox?

 

[F0uad]

That is probably because i can't remember the context I originally had for the question.

Ok fair enough.

If a benevolent God truly wanted to reveal a saving message to mankind does it not follow that he would make that message as universally understandable as possible. For example the Bible looses virtually no meaning in translation. Of course a little is lost but the core truths necessary to get to heaven remain in tact. I would say that a message "claimed" to be for mankind invented by man would show men's cultural bias. This would depend on how much Qur'an is lost in translation and I am certainly not capable of evaluating that meaningfully.

Yes it does there are certain words in Hebrew and Greek that cannot be translated and different words are used, not to forget that translations are interpretations. Moreover the original text is still here so how is it lost? All new Qurans that are printed are all in the Qurayes dialect. Don't you know you have to know classical Greek and its context to fully understand the Biblical verses?

I have another question, this one stumped Shabirr a little. The most universal modern interpretation of the "made it appear they crucified him" Quranic teaching is that Christ was crucified but did not die on the cross and later Allah raised him to himself out of the tomb. The problem is this: The evidence for a dying and rising messiah is the same in both cases. IOW Allah created a specific set of circumstances where every apostle and followers of Christ believed he had died and risen. I do not this this interpretation sustainable with all the prophecies and rock removed from the tomb etc... however that is what the most accepted Islamic interpretation is. Why did Allah create every detail needed to start the "false" belief of Christianity and then condemn it? Many point to the "greatest of schemers" label and one of Muhammad's followers who said he would not feel safe from Allah's schemes with one foot in paradise, but there is little need for this. Allah if he did this did exactly what was necessary to start the greatest false religion in human history and then condemned it. Did he not see what would happen because of what he did? Did he do so any way? Was he restricted to only acting in way? What is the Islamic response to this?

This is easy its not that Allah(swt) deceived them its people who deceived other people.
If you want to start a "crusifiction" debate i advice you to watch more Shabir debating the subject and if there really is verifiable "evidence" for this claim.

 

[Muffled]

In Hindu thought not only is Jesus divine but so are we. The only difference is masters like Jesus are closer to realizing their divinity.

I have seen no evidence that Jesus is mentioned in Hindu scripture. The concept of a God man is present in the Bhagavad Gita but I don't believe Krishna is one even though he claims to be.

I have seen no evidence that everyone is divine. I believe Christians are divine because of the presence of the Holy Spirit but the extent of the realization of that varies. I believe God is able to influence people by his presence but that does not make them divine. I beleive the difference is whether God is resident or just present.

 

[George-ananda]

The book that is the overwhelming source for knowledge of Christ also recorded that we are not divine and it is sinful to claim we are. My point is that the very same book where we learn of Christ also teaches against what you claim in no uncertain terms, how do you derive faith in Christ but not include what he said about us?

In your signature line says Brahman is the only truth. What is Brahman? Is it truth its self. The statement only the truth is true is redundant. Is it a person or teaching? If so is the statement "Brahman is the only truth" part of it. If so then it is again redundant and if not it it's self is not true. Forgive my criticism but I find philosophic principles quite revealing. My favorite is the materialist, determinist, atheists who say there is no absolute truth. Does that include that statement? Do you see the paradox?

Let me try to briefly explain from my years of thinking about these things. The ultimate truth is beyond our capability to fully intellectually grasp. So human understanding has evolved over the ages; from polytheism, to monotheism (positing a distinction between creator and creation; dualism), to non-dualism (Advaita in Sanskrit; creator and creation are not two but One; Brahman).

The Bible writers and Jesus’ teachings were primarily from a dualist philosophy. This is a valid philosophy and I am pro-Jesus, pro-Christianity. I also believe the east (India) has delved the Truth even one stage deeper than the west and has developed non-dual philosophy also. Creation is a thought-form and part of God/Brahman

 

[George-ananda]

I have seen no evidence that Jesus is mentioned in Hindu scripture.

Hindu 'scriptures' were written before Jesus was born.

The concept of a God man is present in the Bhagavad Gita but I don't believe Krishna is one even though he claims to be.[/qu

I have seen no evidence that everyone is divine. I believe Christians are divine because of the presence of the Holy Spirit but the extent of the realization of that varies. I believe God is able to influence people by his presence but that does not make them divine. I beleive the difference is whether God is resident or just present.

I explained the difference in the immediately preceding post to 1Robin. You guys are coming from the legitimate dualist school of thought (there is a creator and a creation). I'm coming from what I believe to be the more evolved non-dualist position (that we are all part of Brahman/God but under the maya-delusion of separateness).

 

[1robin]

Ok fair enough.

Yes it does there are certain words in Hebrew and Greek that cannot be translated and different words are used, not to forget that translations are interpretations. Moreover the original text is still here so how is it lost? All new Qurans that are printed are all in the Qurayes dialect. Don't you know you have to know classical Greek and its context to fully understand the Biblical verses?

Yes I said there would be some loss without a doubt. The point I was attempting to make is even with a little loss all of the Bible's core messages can be sufficiently understood in all languages they are translated in. I have rarely heard a Christian apologist say to anyone that "they must read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew before they can understand it sufficiently. I hear Muslims say this concerning the Quran constantly. It seems to be an "I have no answer" so I will get out of this by saying well you just can't understand it. The same things exists in another form with science oriented atheists as I am sure you are aware. When they just can't make a convincing argument or it si just plain wrong the old well you theists just do not understand science. Same claim different uses. My point was if true I find this Arabic necessity counter productive.

This is easy its not that Allah(swt) deceived them its people who deceived other people.

If you want to start a "crucifixion" debate i advice you to watch more Shabir debating the subject and if there really is verifiable "evidence" for this claim.

The Islamic "view" I gave, is Shabir's interpretation. I think you missed some context I gave. I usually am kind of shooting from the hip but often I give very specific contexts that must be understood, I guess I should state which is which more often. Anyway the context here is.

1. One IMO very suspicious man 500 years later makes a inconsistent counter claim to every contemporary claim of Christ’s crucifixion.

2. The evidence for his not dying (if true) and his dying would be the exact same because Allah "made" (or allowed) it appear to them they had killed him".
a. This makes the Romans who were absolute masters of torture, crucifixion, and death idiots who can't tell if someone has died or not.
b. They risked death if he lived through that experience. Same with the guards at the tomb.
c. They thrust a spear into his heart to make sure specifically.
d. They buried him in a tomb and sealed it.
e. He was not there three days later.

3. The evidence for a resurection after death and a raising before death are exactly the same in this context. Other verses make resurrection the most obvious by far choice but the point is that anyone without bias who veiwed these events would think someone stole the body or he was resurected long before this complex "he was still alive and raised" idea.

These plus many other historical details are identical in Shabir's and my own theology. Any human on earth that was not precommitted to a view already, would have assumed he died. When the tomb was found open, no reasonable person would have ever thought he survived for 3 days or 3 minutes with a gaping hole in his heart, after hanging on a cross for hours, and without food and water for 3 days and Allah had took him to heaven but would not tell anyone for 500 years. The point is the disciples sincerely believed he had been dead and was now resurrected. Why did Allah allow (or cause) the exact set of circumstances to exist that created a sincere and reasonable belief (the largest in human history) in his resurrection and then condemn them for it. Plus, given the prophecies, Jesus own words, and the later appearances, this would seem cruel and capricious and not what a God worthy of worship would do. Did he not know what these events would produce? Did he not care? Did he wish them to be this way? Why take Jesus to heaven at the only time that would have allowed this "wrong" belief to thrive? Why allow any of these events to happen at all? Why not do anything at all for the next 500 years to straighten out the mess he allowed (caused)?

I do not intend to debate the issue here, as this is not the thread for it. I simply wanted to know if a ready answer existed. Shabir's response to it, was a rare let down.

 

[Joshua Tilghman]

How can anything be both fully God and man at the same time unless it is just a difference in the conscious experience? And if that is the case than Jesus simply represented what we can all accomplish. And doesn't the New Testament teach that we are supposed to become ONE with Jesus and the Father.

 

[1robin]

Let me try to briefly explain from my years of thinking about these things. The ultimate truth is beyond our capability to fully intellectually grasp. So human understanding has evolved over the ages; from polytheism, to monotheism (positing a distinction between creator and creation; dualism), to non-dualism (Advaita in Sanskrit; creator and creation are not two but One; Brahman).

I deem this scenario inconsistent with the God of the Bible. The Bible records that we were created for the specific purpose of communing with and relating to God. It can be said that the fall corrupted this ability but not our capacity for it. When we are born again (within my faith) we are restored back to the ability (the capacity never disappeared) to relate to God. Of course a finite mind could never fully comprehend an infinite one but it is very logical and theologically consistent to believe we have been given the full capacity to comprehend what is needed to perform our role in our relationship with God. Any God that would leave us to "tease" out of reality the necessary truth, or find the pieces of that truth buried in mountains of manmade theological garbage is less of a God than the Biblical God. I see you prescribe to the belief creation is God. In what way is small pox God? How is Hitler God? If God is of the world and the world did not exist a finite time in the past then how did God or at least part of God not exist? Do you think creation is God is a better or worse explanation that the Bible’s answers: Small pox is a mutation resulting from the fall of man and the resulting corruption of a once perfect nature that will eventually be restored. Hitler was a man who chose to follow evil and will be punished? That God exists independent of creation and is the source for it. I certainly know which gives a more comprehensive and consistent answer to me.

The Bible writers and Jesus’ teachings were primarily from a dualist philosophy. This is a valid philosophy and I am pro-Jesus, pro-Christianity. I also believe the east (India) has delved the Truth even one stage deeper than the west and has developed non-dual philosophy also. Creation is a thought-form and part of God/Brahman

I see no need for a man made dualistic label for Biblical theology. Jesus taught salvation and never thought it worthwhile to mention dualism directly, so what need have I of the concept? You would need to specify what nature of dualism you have asserted Christ taught. He had a dualistic purpose he had a single message. He taught pluralistic persons in a single God. He taught of pluralistic roles but of a single roll model. He taught salvation was available to every person but through only one person. You can believe Jesus was false or wrong but you can't believe he was real and truthful and not exclusive.

I mean no offense but the Bible claims exhaustively there are two choices. Believe in Christ as the unique and exclusive path to God (and thereby establish a personal relationship with him through teh born again experience) or stumble around in the dark, a prisoner of our own fallible minds. I agree with you to some extent in that on our own theological truth is beyond our grasp. (though that does not explain how we would know that). I maintain that God gave us a true, pure, and sufficient revelation in the Bible and we were also given the ability to comprehend the same if we are willing. That is exactly what I would expect a personal God to do. I would expect a capricious or trivial God to hide and bury bits of truth in mountains of misleading nonsense. I claim the God of the Bible is the exclusive truth given two facts (within this context).

1. The Bible is the most reliable and scrutinized theological document in human history.
2. A single accurate, sufficient, and pure revelation is infinitely more consistent with a "good" God than any other options.

I will give you this, two of todays best Christian philosophers and debators: Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh Disouza came out of Hinduism. Have you ever read or seen them?

 

[F0uad]

Yes I said there would be some loss without a doubt. The point I was attempting to make is even with a little loss all of the Bible's core messages can be sufficiently understood in all languages they are translated in. I have rarely heard a Christian apologist say to anyone that "they must read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew before they can understand it sufficiently. I hear Muslims say this concerning the Quran constantly. It seems to be an "I have no answer" so I will get out of this by saying well you just can't understand it. The same things exists in another form with science oriented atheists as I am sure you are aware. When they just can't make a convincing argument or it si just plain wrong the old well you theists just do not understand science. Same claim different uses. My point was if true I find this Arabic necessity counter productive.

I still don't get what your trying to point out but maybe its just me. .
You agreed that there is loss with translations and not having the ''original'' revelation in whatever dialect or language it is spoken however this is not the case sine we have the Qurasyeh dialect in tact.

So when Muslims are making the claim that you need to know the classical Arabic ''Qurayes'' dialect to fully understand everything ''each word'' you agreed. So what are you trying to suggest or point out i am really confused.

The Islamic "view" I gave, is Shabir's interpretation. I think you missed some context I gave. I usually am kind of shooting from the hip but often I give very specific contexts that must be understood, I guess I should state which is which more often. Anyway the context here is.

You don't even need to use a ''Islamic'' view on the case you can take many directions on this subject.

1. One IMO very suspicious man 500 years later makes a inconsistent counter claim to every contemporary claim of Christ’s crucifixion.

Hes maybe suspicious in your eyes but not in mine or the Muslim community.

2. The evidence for his not dying (if true) and his dying would be the exact same because Allah "made" (or allowed) it appear to them they had killed him".

??

a. This makes the Romans who were absolute masters of torture, crucifixion, and death idiots who can't tell if someone has died or not.

If you read the most early account what record is there of how Jesus(pbuh) died? Hanging someone on the cross and letting him die takes several days or even weeks not 6 to 4 hours.

b. They risked death if he lived through that experience. Same with the guards at the tomb.

Well according to one gospel ''crazy'' events happened during that time so why would they even carry on if that was the case.

c. They thrust a spear into his heart to make sure specifically.

This is not historical and rejected by many biblical scholars it was only reported in John.

d. They buried him in a tomb and sealed it.

Where is your evidence that it was Jesus(pbuh) or that they actually buried him and wasn't the centurion a converted Christian so he could simple lie to Pilate about the event. Moreover Pilate himself was surprised to hear that Jesus(pbuh) ''allegedly died''.

e. He was not there three days later.

This is total irrelevant and would make more sense if he did not die at all.

3. The evidence for a resurection after death and a raising before death are exactly the same in this context. Other verses make resurrection the most obvious by far choice but the point is that anyone without bias who veiwed these events would think someone stole the body or he was resurected long before this complex "he was still alive and raised" idea.

Trust me there is no evidence for a resurrection and we were talking about the ''Crusifiction''.

These plus many other historical details are identical in Shabir's and my own theology. Any human on earth that was not precommitted to a view already, would have assumed he died. When the tomb was found open, no reasonable person would have ever thought he survived for 3 days or 3 minutes with a gaping hole in his heart, after hanging on a cross for hours, and without food and water for 3 days and Allah had took him to heaven but would not tell anyone for 500 years. The point is the disciples sincerely believed he had been dead and was now resurrected. Why did Allah allow (or cause) the exact set of circumstances to exist that created a sincere and reasonable belief (the largest in human history) in his resurrection and then condemn them for it. Plus, given the prophecies, Jesus own words, and the later appearances, this would seem cruel and capricious and not what a God worthy of worship would do. Did he not know what these events would produce? Did he not care? Did he wish them to be this way? Why take Jesus to heaven at the only time that would have allowed this "wrong" belief to thrive? Why allow any of these events to happen at all? Why not do anything at all for the next 500 years to straighten out the mess he allowed (caused)?

There is to many errors in this to even tackle first you look at true Christian glasses instead of a historical one. Ill simply ask this question before i continue. What killed Jesus(pbuh)? The Spear, the placement in the tomb, the hanging? Please make your choice on which one and give me historical ''evidence'' for this claim.

I do not intend to debate the issue here, as this is not the thread for it. I simply wanted to know if a ready answer existed. Shabir's response to it, was a rare let down.

Before you reply next time actually watch a newer video of Shabir where hes arguments have developed because you either did not and just miss presented hes arguments on purpose or you totally miss understood him.
O and sorry for the short-reply my internet is not working properly i will elaborate and clarify the points i made later.

 

[1robin]

I still don't get what your trying to point out but maybe its just me.

.
You agreed that there is loss with translations and not having the ''original'' revelation in whatever dialect or language it is spoken however this is not the case sine we have the Qurasyeh dialect in tact.

This is the difference though it is not currently that important to me.
1. Christianity makes no claim that when the Gospels for example are translated that any necessary core doctrine is lost.
2. Islam's teachers claim constantly that the Quran looses significant meaning in any translation.
I believe #1 is more consistent with a loving God than #2 if my claim is accurate.

So when Muslims are making the claim that you need to know the classical Arabic ''Qurayes'' dialect to fully understand everything ''each word'' you agreed. So what are you trying to suggest or point out i am really confused.

I think you are confused about my statement that you were confused. How often can anyone get a chance to say that. I did not mean YOU. It was a commentary that I believe the Muslims claim that well you (meaning anyone else)can't understand it since you (or we) do not speak Arabic is a copout. I will drop this since I can't remember why I originally thought it important.

You don't even need to use a ''Islamic'' view on the case you can take many directions on this subject.

Since it is an Islamic verse that is the core of what I claim then unlike many others I am willing to use Islamic interpretations of it or them. I will admit that the interpretation within Islam of these verses has changed dramatically and often but the one I used is the "latest". Shabir's claims represent the latest interpretation on the issue. If there is a more accepted one then please indicate what it is.

He’s maybe suspicious in your eyes but not in mine or the Muslim community.

I realize that. I was speaking from the POV of a non-Muslim taught in most cases from his earliest years to believe, as an impartial observer so to speak.

??

The evidence that would exist in the case where Jesus did not die and was "raised" to heaven within the tomb would be identical to what we would have if the Gospels are correct about his death and resurrection. The point was Allah did exactly what was necessary to invent the Apostles faith. Any slight change, (raising after the tomb was opened and he was discovered still alive) for example and these billions of fooled people would not face Hell in the Quran. IOW words he allowed or created the exact circumstances that allowed Christianity to flourish within the life time of eyewitnesses. There is something very diabolical about that if true.

If you read the most early account what record is there of how Jesus(pbuh) died? Hanging someone on the cross and letting him die takes several days or even weeks not 6 to 4 hours.

I have, It usually took longer than 4 to 6 hours but it was not uncommon for death to happen quickly. What is almost universal in the crucifixion accounts is even when criminals were taken down very early as the result of change or resention they almost always died very quickly anyway. Not to mention he was beaten to within a hairs breath of death long before he was hung up there, and then stabbed in the heart by a 3 inch spear head who's intended purpose was to remove all doubt. If that was not enough he was covered in 100 pounds of spices and wrapped in death rags and placed in a sealed tomb without food or water for days. There is no man ever known to have survived anything similar to this but even if there was what are the chances that Christ did as well?

Well according to one gospel ''crazy'' events happened during that time so why would they even carry on if that was the case.

Not in this case. The Roman centurions did exactly what they were trained to do and were masters of. The Gospels record the specific questions, answers, and assurances given that Christ was indeed dead.

This is not historical and rejected by many biblical scholars it was only reported in John.

How would a single scholar know if this occurred or not? In historical studies the earliest source without a sound reason to dismiss it is always given the greatest reliability. Is John not enough? Muhammad alone created what is in the entire Quran? Why is one guy enough for the entirety of Islamic teaching even in spite of claimed historical inaccuracies by the hundreds, but not for the Gospels, or even when 3 or 4 accounts claim the same thing. In addition it is well known this was a common practice in Roman crucifixions.

Where is your evidence that it was Jesus(pbuh) or that they actually buried him and wasn't the centurion a converted Christian so he could simple lie to Pilate about the event. Moreover Pilate himself was surprised to hear that Jesus(pbuh) ''allegedly died''.

The only evidence that exists is unanimous in the fact of Jesus' burial. In fact this is one of the few areas where the majority of NT scholars on all sides agree. This is Shabir's claim and that of the modern interpretation of those verses. Are you adopting the long discredited substitution theory? Will any theory or interpretation do?

This is total irrelevant and would make more sense if he did not die at all.

You mean it makes more sense, that a man beaten within a inch of death, hung on a cross, stabbed in the heart, declared to be dead by people whose life depended on being accurate, wrapped in death clothes, and thought to be dead by all who handled his body in burial was still alive, than he was dead?
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Trust me there is no evidence for a resurrection and we were talking about the ''Crucifixion''.

Only if you dismiss large sections of the book the Quran indicated was to be used to evaluate the Quran. The explosion of Christianity within a hostile community, the acceptance of supernatural events recorded within teh lifetime of eye witnesses, the absence of a single claim of "I was there and X did not happen". The transformation of a scared group of disillusioned apostles into a fearless group who posited a faith they rejected a few days earlier at the risk of death. Paul's conversion. The three most widely accepted historical claims of NT scholars on all sides.

There is to many errors in this to even tackle first you look at true Christian glasses instead of a historical one. Ill simply ask this question before i continue. What killed Jesus(pbuh)? The Spear, the placement in the tomb, the hanging? Please make your choice on which one and give me historical ''evidence'' for this claim.

Would I have to know this to know he died? The people on the scene and who's lives hung in the balance unanimously concluded he died and there is no better testimony than that. Do I have to know which shot killed Kennedy, what drug killed Elvis, or whether Sadam died of heart failure before he was choked by the noose to know all three are dead? That being said I believe he died shortly after he surrendered his spirit to the father and said it is finished. I believe his physical life force was terminated as an act of will or the relinquishment of it. He said he had the power to lay down his life and I think he willed it to be, while on the cross. The spear and the Roman's conclusions are merely confirmation of that.

Before you reply next time actually watch a newer video of Shabir where his arguments have developed because you either did not and just miss presented his arguments on purpose or you totally miss understood him.

1. How do you know of the date for the debate I heard this from him in.
2. I never got into any detail about his defense of the interpretation.
3. The only thing I said is common knowledge and very clear. He believes as many modern Islamists do that Jesus was put on the cross but did not die. He was later "raised" to the father (in the tomb I believe but will not state as fact, do you know). What about any of this is a misunderstanding.

O and sorry for the short-reply my internet is not working properly I will elaborate and clarify the points i made later.

No problem but I think first we must clarify some things.
1. You seem to be borrowing an objection from one interpretation and another from a different one. That is invalid. Allah would not have made a verse with two mutually exclusive interpretations. You must select one (I do not care which but need to know) and defend it alone.
2. Islam's claims are so ambiguous about what in the Bible is corrupted that it allows any verse found inconvenient to be dismissed as corrupt. Unless the EVIDENCE that it is a corruption is BETTER than the evidence that it is not it can't be accepted that it is corrupt.
3. Many of these contentions can't be solved by an Islamic or Christian theological doctrinal claim. I will not accept yours nor you, mine. It must be determined by the more neutral field of law and history. In the case of the integrity of the Gospels as reliable testimony, I submit two of the, if not the greatest legal minds in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst). They, making only legal arguments have both testified that the Gospels meet all modern requirements of evidence, testimony, and history and may be admitted in court under the ancient documents law. Unless you can someone more qualified conclusions you can't expect me to accept you corruption claims for any verse that disagrees with Islam. Unless you can overcome this in some way the Gospels must be considered reliable: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
4. You must show what is inaccurate about my claims about the “raised to God” interpretation that Shabir uses if that is the one you adopt.

If you agree, these issues should be clarified before further debate.

 

[F0uad]

This is the difference though it is not currently that important to me.
1. Christianity makes no claim that when the Gospels for example are translated that any necessary core doctrine is lost.

Nor does Islam it only says that translations is not the exact revelation that was given to Mohammed(saws) therefore verses can be miss presented or wrongly interpreted and certainly with rich languages as Hebrew, Greek and Arabic

2. Islam's teachers claim constantly that the Quran looses significant meaning in any translation.

Yes but it never said it loses core beliefs, what it loses is the beauty and true interpretation what can be significant in some cases.

I believe #1 is more consistent with a loving God than #2 if my claim is accurate.

Why is this the case? Because like i said the Qurayesh dialect is preserved and is still being written in and the ''loving god'' theory makes no sense it is a doctrine that even fails on Christian terms.

I think you are confused about my statement that you were confused. How often can anyone get a chance to say that. I did not mean YOU. It was a commentary that I believe the Muslims claim that well you (meaning anyone else)can't understand it since you (or we) do not speak Arabic is a copout. I will drop this since I can't remember why I originally thought it important.

Ok.. still confused

Since it is an Islamic verse that is the core of what I claim then unlike many others I am willing to use Islamic interpretations of it or them. I will admit that the interpretation within Islam of these verses has changed dramatically and often but the one I used is the "latest". Shabir's claims represent the latest interpretation on the issue. If there is a more accepted one then please indicate what it is.

Untrue Islamic views do not change like the Christian one do, there are different interpretations on this verse from the beginning so its not ''changed'' and the majority beliefs that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified nor killed. I think the more important notion on the verse is that he didn't die since we both can't proof that it exactly was Jesus(pbuh) on the cross it could have been someone that looked like him.

I realize that. I was speaking from the POV of a non-Muslim taught in most cases from his earliest years to believe, as an impartial observer so to speak.

Well i am fully aware of that but you have to understand on what of Bias i have for me what Mohammed(saws) said is true.

The evidence that would exist in the case where Jesus did not die and was "raised" to heaven within the tomb would be identical to what we would have if the Gospels are correct about his death and resurrection. The point was Allah did exactly what was necessary to invent the Apostles faith. Any slight change, (raising after the tomb was opened and he was discovered still alive) for example and these billions of fooled people would not face Hell in the Quran. IOW words he allowed or created the exact circumstances that allowed Christianity to flourish within the life time of eyewitnesses. There is something very diabolical about that if true.

Ok this made no sense at all, moreover if we read the biblical verses you could also understand that Jesus(pbuh) was trying to prove he did not die when he let the Apostles touch him and later the stories developed wherein people started to think he died.

I have, It usually took longer than 4 to 6 hours but it was not uncommon for death to happen quickly. What is almost universal in the crucifixion accounts is even when criminals were taken down very early as the result of change or resention they almost always died very quickly anyway. Not to mention he was beaten to within a hairs breath of death long before he was hung up there, and then stabbed in the heart by a 3 inch spear head who's intended purpose was to remove all doubt. If that was not enough he was covered in 100 pounds of spices and wrapped in death rags and placed in a sealed tomb without food or water for days. There is no man ever known to have survived anything similar to this but even if there was what are the chances that Christ did as well?

This is only if you read the story as it develops in the ages there is more emphasis on this by John, Luke and Matthew. If we read the most early works of Mark we can't even be sure if he died or not, you at-least have to admit when we read the most early writings about the event we can't be certain.

Not in this case. The Roman centurions did exactly what they were trained to do and were masters of. The Gospels record the specific questions, answers, and assurances given that Christ was indeed dead.

I was replying to your other argument where you tried to imply that the Romans risked death if he lived through that experience but its invalid. For instance, only Matthew's gospel mentions an earthquake, resurrected saints who went to the city and that Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb, while Mark is the only one to state the actual time of the crucifixion (the third hour, or 9 am) and the centurion's report of Jesus' death while that centurion who converted and became a Christian.

How would a single scholar know if this occurred or not? In historical studies the earliest source without a sound reason to dismiss it is always given the greatest reliability. Is John not enough? Muhammad alone created what is in the entire Quran? Why is one guy enough for the entirety of Islamic teaching even in spite of claimed historical inaccuracies by the hundreds, but not for the Gospels, or even when 3 or 4 accounts claim the same thing. In addition it is well known this was a common practice in Roman crucifixions.

Stop going off topic please.
Again i am not making the claim its not reliable, SCHOLARS ARE. John is not seen as a historical account at all by Historians even by super naturalists moreover this account of John takes about 125 years after the event if not longer to be reported.

The only evidence that exists is unanimous in the fact of Jesus' burial. In fact this is one of the few areas where the majority of NT scholars on all sides agree. This is Shabir's claim and that of the modern interpretation of those verses. Are you adopting the long discredited substitution theory? Will any theory or interpretation do?

So wait are you saying that the Centurion was not a Christian or that Pilate was not surprised to hear that Jesus(pbuh) died that quickly by that same Centurion?

 

[F0uad]

You mean it makes more sense, that a man beaten within a inch of death, hung on a cross, stabbed in the heart, declared to be dead by people whose life depended on being accurate, wrapped in death clothes, and thought to be dead by all who handled his body in burial was still alive, than he was dead?
Continued below:

Again those stories later develop as the dates of the manuscripts progress and the original statement was irrelevant because so many things could have happen.

Only if you dismiss large sections of the book the Quran indicated was to be used to evaluate the Quran. The explosion of Christianity within a hostile community, the acceptance of supernatural events recorded within teh lifetime of eye witnesses, the absence of a single claim of "I was there and X did not happen". The transformation of a scared group of disillusioned apostles into a fearless group who posited a faith they rejected a few days earlier at the risk of death. Paul's conversion. The three most widely accepted historical claims of NT scholars on all sides.

Again the Quran i should let a Atheist speak on my behalf because you keep bringing up the Quran.
This is all nonsense if you compare it with the question if the ''Resurrection'' is to be proof-able, we both know that all secular historians would disagree but saying that you can ''proof'' it is just silly, its a doctrine what is based on faith not verifiable evidence.

Would I have to know this to know he died? The people on the scene and who's lives hung in the balance unanimously concluded he died and there is no better testimony than that. Do I have to know which shot killed Kennedy, what drug killed Elvis, or whether Sadam died of heart failure before he was choked by the noose to know all three are dead? That being said I believe he died shortly after he surrendered his spirit to the father and said it is finished. I believe his physical life force was terminated as an act of will or the relinquishment of it. He said he had the power to lay down his life and I think he willed it to be, while on the cross. The spear and the Roman's conclusions are merely confirmation of that.

You have to do better then that if you claim he died how can you be certain he died if you don't even know how he ''died''. What if Sadam Hussein's death wasn't recorded? Would there be proof that he actually died or could he just hide and be extradited to a country and use a different identity.

Can you name all the witnesses according to the synoptics? I know of the Christian Centurion and two women who ''saw it from distance''.

1. How do you know of the date for the debate I heard this from him in.
2. I never got into any detail about his defense of the interpretation.
3. The only thing I said is common knowledge and very clear. He believes as many modern Islamists do that Jesus was put on the cross but did not die. He was later "raised" to the father (in the tomb I believe but will not state as fact, do you know). What about any of this is a misunderstanding.

1. Because you assumed several arguments that aren't hes.
2. You spoke on hes behalf and miss presented hes arguments.
3. Modern Islamist don't state that, your talking about a friction of the Muslims maybe 2 to 5% and he has a different take on it then me i also don't see how this is relevant to our core discussion.

I didn't reply on your last one because i am only discussion this notion: Do we have ''proof'' that Jesus(pbuh) was crucified and died on the cross.

I am not asking for possibilities i am asking for proof or certainty.

 

[1robin]

Again those stories later develop as the dates of the manuscripts progress and the original statement was irrelevant because so many things could have happen.

Again I can only disagree and unless you can produce reasons or authorities greater than mine you can't expect me to concur. I have no advantage to believing something that is not accurate. Every motivation I have is to determine truth. Is the standard to simply claim whatever is damaging to Islam is the criteria for corruption as every Islamic apologist I ever heard answer the question has stated? If you have an additional standard what is it?

Again the Quran i should let a Atheist speak on my behalf because you keep bringing up the Quran.

No, You may use a Muslim but speaking in a secular format like law, history, or reason. In fact you may bring them up in any form and I have asked for them specifically but you can't expect me to agree to a claim because someone claimed "Allah" said so. Especially when it is inconsistent with all contemporary claims.

This is all nonsense if you compare it with the question if the ''Resurrection'' is to be proof-able, we both know that all secular historians would disagree but saying that you can ''proof'' it is just silly, its a doctrine what is based on faith not verifiable evidence.

I never claimed the resurrection is provable. In fact many times I have stated it isn't. All historical claims are evaluated on probability not proof. Evidence not proven fact.

You have to do better then that if you claim he died how can you be certain he died if you don't even know how he ''died''.

I do not think I do. He went through several things that easily could have killed anyone and at least one that was done specifically to make sure death occurred and it just kept getting worse. The only issue is, is it more likely he died or lived through all of this. I think the answer obvious.

What if Sadam Hussein's death wasn't recorded? Would there be proof that he actually died or could he just hide and be extradited to a country and use a different identity.

As a matter of fact I did not even know it was televised. I only read a place or two that he was hung and combined with all other data I had was good enough to believe so. You are confusing what is necessary for proof versus what is necessary to have reasonable faith. Looks like I am out of time, my company has to shut power down in a minute for some reason. I will respond to the rest soon.

 

[F0uad]

Again I can only disagree and unless you can produce reasons or authorities greater than mine you can't expect me to concur. I have no advantage to believing something that is not accurate. Every motivation I have is to determine truth. Is the standard to simply claim whatever is damaging to Islam is the criteria for corruption as every Islamic apologist I ever heard answer the question has stated? If you have an additional standard what is it?

How is this a reply?

Its well known that stories develop as they progress in time an example of this is Jesus(pbuh) being seen as god starting from Mark to Matthew/Luke and then John. The same goes for the ''horrible'' punishment Jesus(pbuh) received where is the spear mentioned in the three synoptic gospels and i can give you many more examples.

No, You may use a Muslim but speaking in a secular format like law, history, or reason. In fact you may bring them up in any form and I have asked for them specifically but you can't expect me to agree to a claim because someone claimed "Allah" said so. Especially when it is inconsistent with all contemporary claims.

Stop mixing things up and pay attention please, you are the one bringing up ''Muslims, Quran, Islam'' with each comment you post. What has Islam to do with the crucifixion of Jesus(pbuh) when i am discussing it true Historical accounts and not the Quran.

I never claimed the resurrection is provable. In fact many times I have stated it isn't. All historical claims are evaluated on probability not proof. Evidence not proven fact.

This is what you said:
The evidence for a resurection after death and a raising before death are exactly the same in this context.

If all historical claims are evaluated on probability then you would have a big problem because Jesus(pbuh) not dying is also a probability or someone that died in hes place could also be a probability. Historical evidence is having multiplied individual references or sources of people that date back to the event of happening.

I do not think I do. He went through several things that easily could have killed anyone and at least one that was done specifically to make sure death occurred and it just kept getting worse. The only issue is, is it more likely he died or lived through all of this. I think the answer obvious.

Well you still haven't proven that it was Jesus(pbuh) to begin with secondly you still insist that a spear killed him yet its not considered to be historical by modern biblical scholars and historians. Thirdly you did not address that the stories developed as time progressed many years after the event. And as last you still haven't made up your mind on what really killed him.

As a matter of fact I did not even know it was televised. I only read a place or two that he was hung and combined with all other data I had was good enough to believe so. You are confusing what is necessary for proof versus what is necessary to have reasonable faith. Looks like I am out of time, my company has to shut power down in a minute for some reason. I will respond to the rest soon.

Well its a bad comparison because you possessed data and multiplied accounts of the event moreover you could double-check it, seen it on a youtube video with your own eyes there is all the evidence you need.
In the case of Jesus(pbuh) the only thing we have is a manuscript that is decades after the ''Crucifixion''.

Moreover people in that time people would call other people dead much faster for example in Matthew it states that the daughter Jairus is already dead but yet according to Mark and Luke she was not dead yet. So either these verses contradict each other or people in those time had a different definition of death in some cases. So lets say for example that Jesus(pbuh) was on the cross there is still no evidence that he really died the only thing you can say is that there is a probability that he died.