Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

[Dawnofhope]

Hey Adrian, as usual a couple of questions for you. So they did not kill the true "him" the Spirit? Nor did they crucify that true Spirit. But, they did kill and crucify the flesh and blood body of Jesus? So how does the "made to resemble him" part fit into your metaphor?

The physical body of Jesus (that was crucified) would have resembled Jesus would it not? Yet the essence of Jeus was not His body but His Spirit. His Spirit ascended (resurrected) to heaven figuratively speaking.

So Islam takes a metaphorical verse from the Quran and takes it literally. But both Christians and Baha's take the verses that talk about the crucifixion literally? I mean all the verses? Matthew 27:52 has tombs being opened and the dead people came out and walked around Jerusalem? Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44 has it get dark for three hours. Then, of course, all the gospels tells the story of Jesus coming to life again.

So some is literal and some is metaphor all mixed together? Muslims have it wrong? Christians have it wrong? And only Baha'is know when something is literal and when something is symbolic?

It would be correct to say that Muslims, Christians and Baha'is each have differing narratives regarding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. However within each of these three faiths there is a variety of opinion. If we are to look at scholars of history, most would agree with the crucifixion of Christ but not the literal resurrection. This is the Baha'i position. There are of course atheists who deny Jesus existed at all. There are no atheist historians who support the literal resurrection and not the crucifixion for obvious reasons. The crucifixion of Christ is seen as being plausible history as Roman's were known for crucifying criminals. The resurrection has no support or evidence other than the account in the Gospels.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I'm not sure which historians you refer to. The two historians closest to that period to mention Jesus are Josephus and Tacitus and neither support the Islamic view. Another important Jewish historian Philo didn't mention Jesus at all, presumably because he saw His mission as having no particular consequence.

You will make me dig it out aren't you? It's been many years. I think his name began with an H. Working.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Textual criticism is increasingly being applied to the Qur'an, as it has been to the Bible since the 18th century. Nicolai Sinai's, The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction (Edinburgh University Press, 2017) is the latest such major exercise, Keith E. Small's, Textual Criticism and Qur’an Manuscripts (Lanham/Boulder/New York/Toronto/Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2012) is another.

Note Small’s opening statement (p. 3): “It is widely acknowledged that there has never been a critical text produced for the Qur’an based on extant manuscripts, as has been done with other sacred books and bodies of ancient literature..." Islamic countries have seriously restricted Western efforts to do so. And despite emphasising the relative stability of Qur'anic transmission compared to other books from antiquity, he later opines that, "the history of the transmission of the text of the Qur’an is at least as much a testament to the destruction of Qur’an material as it is to its preservation . . . It is also testimony to the fact that there never was one original text of the Qur’an” (p. 180).”

I agree with this. Biblical scholarship should not be feared and is supportive of many aspects of Christian history and theology. Muslims need to fearlessly embark on the same journey. Conservative Muslim leaders and scholars are all too often a barrier instead of championing independant investigation of truth.

There is a consensus among Western scholars of Islam that the Qur'an must be historically contextualized in late antiquity, and that it is indeed a fascinating document which brings together many themes of this period and crystallises them. To this end, it is widely agreed that the Qur'an uses narratives about Jesus from the region where it originated and this is to be expected. The story of the “Companions in the Cave” in Sura Al-Kahf 9–26 is evidently derived from the story of the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus,” a Christian tale found in the writings of the Syrian bishop Jacob of Serugh (c. 450 – 521), which he in turn transcribed from an earlier Greek source.

Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are all religions that build on what has gone before. The Quran refers to about 50 different biblical characters. Whether or not the story of the seven sleepers is the basis for the Sura of the Cave doesn't change too much.

The Qur’an is not a miracle when viewed from a scholarly perspective (which must always be secular), it is a historical phenomenon. Regarding it as the divinely inspired Word of God should not prevent Muslims from recognising this, just as fundamentalist Christians should not be allowed to demur from a critical approach to biblical texts in their ancient near eastern, Second Temple Judaic and Greco-Roman context, because it too is not a miracle.

Agreed. For the purposes of an open religious discussion, we need to be open to examining both the Gospels and Quran with reference to scholarship, history and textural analysis.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus didn't die from the effects of the cross. His body died due to the spear piercing his lungs and heart when the Roman soldier checked to see if he was yet dead.

I have read this before, but it does not seem to make sense. John's account was an eyewitness testimony, standing there with Jesus' mother at the foot of the execution stake.

John 19:31-37.....
"Then the Jews, because it was the day of reparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross [stauros] on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

If Jesus had still been alive, they would have broken his legs so that he could not have pushed up with his feet to reinflate his lungs...suffocation would then have taken place and hastened his death. The spear was proof that Jesus was already dead. Since blood and water came out, if Jesus had still been alive, just whole blood would have come out, not blood separated into its components.

In the Romans Catholicism , which focus also on "relics", the spear used is called, the Spear of Destiny, also, the Holy Lance.

Never did understand this relic worship thing......making idols out of material things was forbidden in God's law. The holy lance eh? What on earth was holy about it?

I can only guess at the number of nails that were cherished as the nails that were pierced through the feet and hands of Jesus. Or the pieces of wood said to have been part of his torture stake. IMO, they would be right up there with the fake shroud of Turin.

 

[arthra]

Adrian,

Thanks for posting this topic! I tried voting three times and interestingly each time I voted the screen jumped and wouldn't register my vote! Maybe a staff member can help... any way I do have some material I'd like to share here if it's permissible:

The problem is that the belief that there was a substitute for Jesus by many Muslims is based on an interpretation...

We then must ask... if there was a substitute ...who was it? Some think it was Judas and some Simon of Cyrene...

The question is also asked where was Jesus when the substitute was being crucified?

If Jesus had a substitute then He would be "ducking out" ... evading an execution meant for Him...Someone gave their life for Jesus..

The "substitute" concept doesn't really fly very far.

Another proposal was that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion and revived and traveled to Kashmir.. to die there later at an advanced age... Some Ahmadiyyih Muslims believe this.

Why is the Baha'i view important? By stressing the issue that Jesus was physically crucified.. and that His Spirit ascended reconciles Muslims and Christians ...

Let's look again at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali


That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-




and again recall the earlier verse I cited above in Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157.... while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed...but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke..

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

....and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46


So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur'an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. There are translations that mention a substitute as in

Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:

And because they said, "We have killed the Messiah, Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah" they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him.

So to me it's an issue of interpretation.

The Arabic word in question is "Shubbiha" and means


it was made to appear (so)
for more information:

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

 

[CG Didymus]

So Islam takes a metaphorical verse from the Quran and takes it literally. But both Christians and Baha's take the verses that talk about the crucifixion literally? I mean all the verses? Matthew 27:52 has tombs being opened and the dead people came out and walked around Jerusalem? Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44 has it get dark for three hours. Then, of course, all the gospels tells the story of Jesus coming to life again.

The answer I'm looking for here has to do with the "historical" gospel narrative about the crucifixion. You say the crucifixion literally happened. But what about the other things. The dead people coming out of their tombs and the day turning dark for three hours. Christians probably believe those things also literally happened. I doubt Baha'is would. After the crucifixion the "historical" narrative says Jesus rose from the dead. Most Christians take that literal. Baha'is don't.

Before Baha'u'llah told the world what was historical and what was symbolic, who knew? Why would anybody, that was a believer, doubt the Bible? But now, anything that contradicts the Baha'i position is symbolic and anything that goes with the Baha'i pov is literal? And now, Baha'is are doing it with the Quran? If it opposes Baha'i beliefs, it is not literal. What is Truth then? Only what Baha'is say it is?

The physical body of Jesus (that was crucified) would have resembled Jesus would it not? Yet the essence of Jeus was not His body but His Spirit. His Spirit ascended (resurrected) to heaven figuratively speaking.

Hmmm? Did the physical body of Jesus resemble Jesus? That's a tough one. But, they didn't kill Jesus, the real Jesus, which is his Spirit. They only thought they killed him. But what they killed only resembled the real Jesus. And it resembled the real Jesus because it was his real physical body? I think I've got it now. Thanks for clearing it up?

You know I do like Baha'is a lot and most of their teachings. But why can't Baha'is just say "no" once in a while? That the Christians and Muslims are wrong. Their Holy Books are wrong. They are very misleading and in some cases just plain wrong. Why this calling things that you say didn't happen "true symbolically"? What is that? I still think all it does is make the Bible a book of fables... but with deep symbolic meaning? Then be consistent and say the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion are symbolic too.

 

[CG Didymus]

Adrian,

Thanks for posting this topic! I tried voting three times and interestingly each time I voted the screen jumped and wouldn't register my vote! Maybe a staff member can help... any way I do have some material I'd like to share here if it's permissible:

The problem is that the belief that there was a substitute for Jesus by many Muslims is based on an interpretation...

We then must ask... if there was a substitute ...who was it? Some think it was Judas and some Simon of Cyrene...

The question is also asked where was Jesus when the substitute was being crucified?

If Jesus had a substitute then He would be "ducking out" ... evading an execution meant for Him...Someone gave their life for Jesus..

The "substitute" concept doesn't really fly very far.

Another proposal was that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion and revived and traveled to Kashmir.. to die there later at an advanced age... Some Ahmadiyyih Muslims believe this.

Why is the Baha'i view important? By stressing the issue that Jesus was physically crucified.. and that His Spirit ascended reconciles Muslims and Christians ...

Let's look again at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali


That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-




and again recall the earlier verse I cited above in Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157.... while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed...but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke..

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

....and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46


So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur'an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. There are translations that mention a substitute as in

Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:

And because they said, "We have killed the Messiah, Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah" they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him.

So to me it's an issue of interpretation.

The Arabic word in question is "Shubbiha" and means


it was made to appear (so)
for more information:

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

Could Muslims have it backwards? What if the real Jesus was killed. His spirit rose up to heaven. Then, God had his look-a-like appear to the disciples? That would also explain why Christians thought that Jesus rose from the dead.

Or, could Baha'is be wrong? The empty tomb? Jesus' appearances? His ascending? Why not? Baha'is can't explain away all those things just by saying that suddenly all the gospels went into "symbolic" mode. Why couldn't it have happened? It's a great spiritual story showing the power of God. Or, an even easier explanation... it is made up fiction... Except the crucifixion of course.

 

[Jumi]

There is plenty of evidence even from non-Christian sources that say yes, Jesus was crucified. (Link)

Your link is to bing, wrong link?

 

[Riders]

Your link is to bing, wrong link?

That link has this sight which uses examples that have been proven wrong and not authentic.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian,

Thanks for posting this topic! I tried voting three times and interestingly each time I voted the screen jumped and wouldn't register my vote! Maybe a staff member can help... any way I do have some material I'd like to share here if it's permissible:

Hey @arthra
Excellent post thank you. Its useful to consider the argument of a substitution for Jesus and follow through to its logical conclusion.

You are right in the significance being to reconcile to Gospels and Quran.

Your vote worked just fine so you don't need any assistance from staff for now.

 

[Salvador]

Yep, they were definitely the two of nails used to crucify Jesus two thousand years old. They look old enough so what other explanation can there be!? Oh...wait a minutes...the're not really big enough to go through the wrists and wood to hold a 70 kg man.

"In 1968, in an excavated tomb located just NE of Jerusalem, the remains were found of a Jew who was executed in the first century. As shown by subsequent studies, an iron nail 11.5 cm (4.5 in.) long was still piercing the right heel bone. This nail may be similar to the nails employed by the Roman soldiers to impale Jesus Christ."

How long were the nails that crucified Jesus

 

[Dawnofhope]

The answer I'm looking for here has to do with the "historical" gospel narrative about the crucifixion. You say the crucifixion literally happened. But what about the other things. The dead people coming out of their tombs and the day turning dark for three hours. Christians probably believe those things also literally happened. I doubt Baha'is would. After the crucifixion the "historical" narrative says Jesus rose from the dead. Most Christians take that literal. Baha'is don't.

Before Baha'u'llah told the world what was historical and what was symbolic, who knew? Why would anybody, that was a believer, doubt the Bible? But now, anything that contradicts the Baha'i position is symbolic and anything that goes with the Baha'i pov is literal? And now, Baha'is are doing it with the Quran? If it opposes Baha'i beliefs, it is not literal. What is Truth then? Only what Baha'is say it is?

So having established the absolutely plausibility of Jesus being crucified lets consider some of other events to which you refer.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Matthew 27:51-53

The veil of the temple could have been torn in two but we have no historic records to confirm either way. Likewise the earthquake. They do sound metaphorical. The temple veil being torn symbolising the end of the Mosaic dispensation along with the alluding to the destruction of the second temple. The earthquake could be the paradigm shift or change from the Old to New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31).

How about all those dead people rising from their graves. Surely history would have recorded such a dramatic event? I would presume its talking about the release of spiritual forces to enable the spiritual dead to have new life. That was one of the great themes of the Gospel Message after all.

People throughout the world are reconsidering the meaning of such verses independant of anything the Baha'is are saying. It is the revolution of modern Biblical scholarship that had gathered momentum over the twentieth century and beyond.

Hmmm? Did the physical body of Jesus resemble Jesus? That's a tough one. But, they didn't kill Jesus, the real Jesus, which is his Spirit. They only thought they killed him. But what they killed only resembled the real Jesus. And it resembled the real Jesus because it was his real physical body? I think I've got it now. Thanks for clearing it up?

You know I do like Baha'is a lot and most of their teachings. But why can't Baha'is just say "no" once in a while? That the Christians and Muslims are wrong. Their Holy Books are wrong. They are very misleading and in some cases just plain wrong. Why this calling things that you say didn't happen "true symbolically"? What is that? I still think all it does is make the Bible a book of fables... but with deep symbolic meaning? Then be consistent and say the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion are symbolic too.

You know the Baha'is. We just tell it as we see it. There's no need to sugar coat what we believe in.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Adrian,

Thanks for posting this topic! I tried voting three times and interestingly each time I voted the screen jumped and wouldn't register my vote! Maybe a staff member can help... any way I do have some material I'd like to share here if it's permissible:

The problem is that the belief that there was a substitute for Jesus by many Muslims is based on an interpretation...

We then must ask... if there was a substitute ...who was it? Some think it was Judas and some Simon of Cyrene...

The question is also asked where was Jesus when the substitute was being crucified?

If Jesus had a substitute then He would be "ducking out" ... evading an execution meant for Him...Someone gave their life for Jesus..

The "substitute" concept doesn't really fly very far.

Another proposal was that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion and revived and traveled to Kashmir.. to die there later at an advanced age... Some Ahmadiyyih Muslims believe this.

Why is the Baha'i view important? By stressing the issue that Jesus was physically crucified.. and that His Spirit ascended reconciles Muslims and Christians ...

Let's look again at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali


That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-




and again recall the earlier verse I cited above in Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157.... while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed...but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke..

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

....and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46


So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur'an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. There are translations that mention a substitute as in

Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:

And because they said, "We have killed the Messiah, Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah" they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him.

So to me it's an issue of interpretation.

The Arabic word in question is "Shubbiha" and means


it was made to appear (so)
for more information:

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

Mashallah, that is pretty good.

 

[Augustus]

Muslim belief is based on a literal interpretation of the verses in the Quran quoted in the OP. Because Muslims believe the Quran is the unerring word of God, they believe it must be true. There may be a few Hadiths in support too. Interestingly some early Muslim scholars saw the verse metaphorically rather than literally true.

Ja'far ibn Mansur al-Yaman (d. 347 AH/958 CE), Abu Hatim Ahmad ibn Hamdan al-Razi (d. 322 AH/935 CE), Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani (d. 358 AH/971 CE), Mu'ayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 470 AH/1078 CE ) and the group Ikhwan al-Safa also affirm the historicity of the Crucifixion, reporting Jesus was crucified and not substituted by another man as maintained by many other popular Qur'anic commentators and Tafsir.

In reference to the Quranic quote "We have surely killed Jesus the Christ, son of Mary, the apostle of God", Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub asserts this boast not as the repeating of a historical lie or the perpetuating of a false report, but an example of human arrogance and folly with an attitude of contempt towards God and His messenger(s). Ayoub furthers what modern scholars of Islam interpret regarding the historical death of Jesus, the man, as man's inability to kill off God's Word and the Spirit of God, which the Quran testifies were embodied in Jesus Christ. Ayoub continues highlighting the denial of the killing of Jesus as God denying men such power to vanquish and destroy the divine Word. The words, "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him" speaks to the profound events of ephemeral human history, exposing mankind's heart and conscience towards God's will. The claim of humanity to have this power against God is illusory. "They did not slay him...but it seemed so to them" speaks to the imaginations of mankind, not the denial of the actual event of Jesus dying physically on the cross.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion, the following is a journal article on the topic. Obviously, the answer to a question like this depends a lot on the methodological framework you apply to the question. Also if you accept the Islamic position that it was only a likeness of him that was crucified, all of the eyewitnesses would still see 'Jesus' being crucified.

Here's one view though:

The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive?

According to most classical Muslim commentators the Quran teaches that Jesus did not die. On the day of the crucifixion another person – whether his disciple or his betrayer – was miraculously transformed and assumed the appearance of Jesus. He was taken away, crucified, and killed, while Jesus was assumed body and soul into heaven. Most critical scholars accept that this is indeed the Quran’s teaching, even if the Quran states explicitly only that the Jews did not kill Jesus. In the present paper I con- tend that the Quran rather accepts that Jesus died, and indeed alludes to his role as a witness against his murderers in the apocalypse. The paper begins with an analysis of the Quran’s references to the death of Jesus, continues with a description of classical Muslim exegesis of those references, and concludes with a presentation of the Quran’s conversation with Jewish and Christian tradition on the matter of Jesus’ death.

https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_files/jesus dead or alive.pdf


Reynolds' concludes with his opinion that:


If tafsīr indeed provides an accurate explanation of the Quran’s original, intended meaning, then nowhere should the explanation be clearer than in the case of the Crucifixion. If the Prophet Muḣammad announced to his companions that Jesus never died, but rather someone who was made miraculously to look like him died in his place, i.e. if he gave a historical account of the crucifixion which fundamentally contra- dicts that which Jews and Christians had been reporting for hundreds of years, then certainly such a revolutionary account – if any – would be well remembered and well preserved. But, quite to the contrary, the reports of the mufassirūn are inconsistent and often contradictory. They have all of the tell-tale signs of speculative exegesis.

This strikes me as reason enough for critical scholars to read this quranic passage in light of earlier (i.e. Jewish and Christian) and not later (i.e. Islamic exegesis) literature. When the Quran is read in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that the passage on the crucifixion is fully in line with Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric. A major theme of this rhetoric, of course, is the portrayal of the Jews as prophet-killers. Accordingly the Quran, in sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 155, accuses the Jews of “murdering the prophets”. When the Quran then alludes to the crucifixion just two verses later, it means to give the cardinal example of just such a murder.

 

[George-ananda]

I've had this conversation with another.







Hope that explains it.

Well that didn't really explain it. It sidestepped the question of what happened historically.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The asserted ascension and empty tomb aside, which are irrelevant, crucifixions were common enough around that time that I find it quite possible that a man, who had put fear in the Jewish establishment and the Roman governor, be found guilty of a capital crime and executed for it..

True, but that could be anyone. Did you honestly think Jesus was the only rebel in his time? Or even after he was gone? Contemporary scholars of Jesus' alleged execution has not been verified despite the commonality of roman executions. There is nothing valid that says Jesus was executed except the Biblical and the Quranic narrative.

We don't, but I have have little trouble accepting an incident, which was quite common back then, as true. Just as I can accept that John’s clothes were made from camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist, as described in Matthew 3:4.

What was also common in the Bible was men talking to burning bushes, people being swept up by God, people wrestling with angels, people being swallowed by whales, and people building arks while the rest of the world drowns.

 

[Augustus]

True, but that could be anyone. did you honestly think Jesus was the only rebel in his time? Or even after he was gone? The fact is you have not shown nor any contemporary scholars of Jesus' alleged execution. There is nothing valid that says Jesus was executed except the Biblical and the Quranic narrative.

You have non-Christians referring to it within a few decades which is near-contemporary in historical standards. Someone like Tacitus, as a Senator, might well have had access to Roman records too.

You also don't have anyone remotely contemporary arguing that he wasn't crucified, despite many people strongly rejecting the Christian message and having every reason to find reasons to attack its credibility.

Also, it is highly unlikely that someone would make up something so harmful to their message. That the Son of God, and Jewish Messiah could be crucified wasn't exactly what you would dream up as a positive selling point to either Jews or Pagans.

Unless you consider Jesus to be mythical it makes little sense to consider that he wasn't crucified.

 

[Vouthon]

If we are to look at scholars of history, most would agree with the crucifixion of Christ but not the literal resurrection. This is the Baha'i position.

Virtually every scholar, with the exception of a few fringe ones like Carrier, accepts that Jesus existed as a historical person and every one of these scholars regards the crucifixion as an historical event.

So rather than most, I would say all of the whopping consensus of scholars who are engaged in studying the historical Jesus.

In terms of the resurrection, atheist scholars naturally don't think it happened from a scientific point of view.

However, there is again a consensus that the belief in the resurrection goes back to the earliest days of the church and emerged among the apostles who had known Jesus.

In St. Paul's letters, he quotes ancient creedos that scholars have unanimously concluded do not bear his literary input or fit with his normal vocabulary but rather pre-date his letters.

Given that his letters were composed between circa. 48 - 57, this means that the creeds mentioning the resurrection must go back to the 30s when Jesus died and emanate from the Jerusalem church under Jesus's own brother James.

St. Paul tells us that Peter, James the brother of Jesus (both of whom he knew personally) and scores of other people were recipients of ecstatic experiences in which they encountered the risen Jesus.

Scholars believe these experiences to be actual claimed events (they obviously cannot affirm or deny the validity of them, that's beyond historical inquiry and contingent on one's personal beliefs).

How one interprets the contents of these experiences and what they mean is dependent on personal conviction, not history.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Also, it is highly unlikely that someone would make up something so harmful to their message. That the Son of God, and Jewish Messiah could be crucified wasn't exactly what you would dream up as a positive selling point to either Jews or Pagans.

Unless you consider Jesus to be mythical it makes little sense to consider that he wasn't crucified.

I'm not saying he wasn't crucified, all I'm saying there is no evidence. Even if we find the nails that actually pierced the flesh of Jesus we have no database to compare a DNA sample to make a definite answer. Like the belief in God, the angels, the devil, and all that is in between this amounts to faith.

The story of Jesus, like Horus, Mithras, or any dying-and-rising godly figure, it amounts to our own individual faith. There are so many conflicting accounts of who Jesus was crucifixion aside he (JESUS) might as well remain a legend.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not saying he wasn't crucified, all I'm saying there is no evidence.

Of course there is evidence, which is why almost all secular historians believe it.

There may not be absolute 100% proof, but there isn't that for basically anything in ancient history.

The story of Jesus, like Horus, Mithras, or any dying-and-rising godly figure,

Neither of them died, let alone were resurrected. Horus was healed from near death after a scorpion stung him though.

Their similarities are vastly overstated.

Even if we find the nails that actually pierced the flesh of Jesus we have no database to compare a DNA sample to make a definite answer. Like the belief in God, the angels, the devil, and all that is in between this amounts to faith.

The story of Jesus, like Horus, Mithras, or any dying-and-rising godly figure, it amounts to our own individual faith. There are so many conflicting accounts of who Jesus was crucifixion aside he (JESUS) might as well remain a legend.

I'm not arguing that the Gospels are particularly accurate of that he was resurrected, just that he was a Jewish preacher who was crucified.