• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

Was Jesus crucified?


  • Total voters
    54

Shia Islam

Quran and Ahlul-Bayt a.s.
Premium Member
Is this Hadith attributed to Muhammad?

Assuming this is really true. What happened to Jesus? Did He die naturally later?


The Hadith is narrated by Ibn Abbas. He is the cousin of the prophet. There is a general rule that says whenever the companions say something related to the unknown, such as what is there in the Paradise, then they must have taken it from the prophet. otherwise they should clarify. This is especially true taking into consideration that Muslims believe that the scriptures of old prophets have been distorted, and Muslims were discouraged from reading the ancient scriptures. Yes Shia believe that the Imams have the scriptures of the ancient prophets.

Then the Shiites and many Sunnis believe that the Jewish teachings have infiltrated the Sunni Hadith, through a rabbi called Kaab al Ahbar and others.

During the lifetime of the prophet this rabbi rejected Islam. and later on he joined Umar and Muaawiya and declared his conversion. Many thinks that his conversion was not genuine. He joined the caliph Umar in his journey to Jerusalem and was an influential figure.

Now regarding what happened to Jesus, the general Muslim view is that he is still alive, and he will return after the return of the Mahdi, and will have a great role to play in that time. Yes, there are some details regarding how Jesus was raised, where Muslim believes that there was a time when his soul left his body and then it returned again.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you actually mean by "truth and authenticity" if you (rightfully) recognize that the gospel story is not historic truth?

Some aspects are historically true and some are not. The crucifixion is historically true although its theological truth is more important than its historic truth. The resurrection narrative is not literally true but vital to understanding the message of Christ.

Why do you accept the Christian idea of apostolic succession if the source of this idea comes only from your "not historic" New Testament?

Jesus appointed Peter as successor (Matthew 16:18). This is the foundation of apostolic succession. Unfortunately it all went pear shaped by the 4th century AD. That's just an historic fact through analysis of the Nicene Creed and the Quran.

Of course you are free to believe whatever you like, but to me it doesn't feel like you are being consistent. Perhaps this is because you partially follow the ideas on this subject coming from the founder of the Bahai religion?

If being consistent means accepting everything in the Bible as historically true, then I am not consisitent. If being consistent means accepting everything as being theologically true and NOT historic, then I am not being consistent. Then again no progressive Christian would take such an approach either.

An analysis of any biblical text requires careful study considering textural context, historic circumstance, comparitive religion, reason, life experience and science...not necessarily in that order.

I choose to be a Baha'i and follow the Baha'i Teachings. Its simply a framework as any religion should be. There's plenty of room for freedom of thought and independant investigation of reality within that framework.

I would never call any religion a lie, but if most of it is made up you have to be very careful about what you are still prepared to accept as having a historic base. So what would an "untrue non-authentic" New Testament have looked like in your eyes?

I work with the best available New Testament, which appears to me to be exactly the same New Testament of my Christian peers. For you it is Q-lite. I'm in no position to provide meaningful commentary on Q-lite as I haven't studied it. I suspect it will have aspects I both agree and disagree with.

Baha'is have significant theological differences with Christians despite our sharing the same set of sacred writings. We also have some important shared beliefs, for example the crucifixion of Christ.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What would be wrong with it being some historical things being embellished?

That's exactly what the Baha'is are saying.

Who would have followed Jesus without people telling them that he calmed a storm, healed the lame, walked on water?

Millions of people throughout the centuries have followed Jesus without witnessing any such miracle. (Matthew 16:4)

But why would Christians tell people symbolic, fictional, mythical story and not tell them that the things in the story are all historically true?

Because they felt inspired by God to do so.

That's the lie, that's the deception or... maybe those things did happen? Then the lie and the deception are the ones that teach those things didn't happen.

Then you can call God a liar.

There was a time when people weren't "entitled" to their opinions. Christians killed those they thought were heretics.

That's true even now in some circles.

Even Baha'is don't let Baha'is have opinions that go against Baha'i authority and their covenant things.

We've had at least three Baha'is here on RF that have opinions contrary to Baha'i authority. The rest of us are completely chilled out about it.

And Baha'is I think have said things like people of other religions following superstitions and traditions of men.

Sometimes that it is the origin of beliefs like the resurrection and sometimes the Baha'is need to call it.

So where is the lovey dovey interfaith feelings in that?

The Baha'is here are not living in some hippy bubble of the 1970s singing Kumbaya with flowers in our hair. Regardless of how polite and tactful we may be the Baha'i Faith simultaneously challenges the foundation of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and atheism. The Baha'i faith is considered an apostate religion and faces persecution in a number of Muslim countries. The evangelical Christians and Catholics know who we are as do the Jews. The Hindus don't want another Abrahamic Faith taking off where Christianity and Islam stalled.

No, we all have been taught religious things and a lot of them are wrong.

True.

And, there is deception that goes on in religion.

Sure.

You know the main one. People talking about it but not living it themselves. And, since nobody is perfect, does anybody truly live it? Which leads to another religious deception. People that are fooling themselves on how "spiritual" or "religious they are.

I don't see any of the Baha'is claiming to be any better than anyone else here. Do you?
 
What is interesting here is in which you do not accept or are unwilling to accept is that probability is not on trial here. It is the verifiable evidence of the probable.

Multiple independent historical sources, both Christian and non-Christian, attest to the crucifixion.

This is evidence. It is the same kind of evidence that we have for most ancient history.

You see, it is probable that a historical Moses existed and spoke to God directly through a burning bush. It is probable that Enoch was taken up by God to become the Metatron. It is even probable that Muhammad became a prophet after meditating in the cave of Hira. It is also probable that Jesus was crucified (or not) and ascended to heaven. It is even probable that as I'm typing this I have a halo around my head with a swinging devil's tail.

I think you are confusing probable with possible.

None of what you have listed is even remotely probable. Tautologically, by being miraculous, they are among the most improbable things one could imagine.

Fact is this amounts to faith not certainty nor objective truth.

Then we hold scientific studies to be true 'based on faith', people are found guilty of murder 'based on faith', basically all of pre-modern history is 'based on faith'.

All of these are generally questions of probability

We cannot prove without a body, that such and such discovered body is Alexander the Great considering the decomposition factor but we can say through historical writings that have verifiable proof that a character named "Alexander The Great" existed. We have verifiable proof that a historical character named Muhammad existed.

Which means we have the same kind of evidence we have for Jesus being crucified...

By your logic, people who believe Alexander the Great and Muhammad existed do so purely on faith.

We even have some proof that a historical Jesus existed. The point is it remains to be seen that he was actually crucified because there is no tangible evidence outside the Bible.

And several other non-Christian sources...

to substantiate probability we need proof that such events actually occurred otherwise it is merely a matter of faith which none of you who chose yes can prove with demonstrable evidence.

Unless we are certain Jesus was crucified we can't logically believe it probable? i.e. to substantiate probability we need certainty?

But arguing about probabilities takes this discussion nowhere except you have your belief and I have mind but its worthless arguing over this fact because you have no tangible proof except probabilities and probabilities do not make things as fact.

So it is pointless discussing any issue where probabilities are involved as all opinion are equally valid regardless of the evidence? Nothing reasoned inductively really matters as it's all just probability and thus based on faith?

Why then do you argue probabilities all the time on RF: what you believe reason and evidence best supports?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I think you are confusing probable with possible.

None of what you have listed is even remotely probable. Tautologically, by being miraculous, they are among the most improbable things one could imagine.

No. I understand the difference between probable and possible. One is likely to happen (probable) and one has the potentiality to happen (possible). Ok, case in point you really believe it happened based on a few non-Christian sources. Ok, I am unsure if it actually happened regardless of the sources. According to the Babylonian Talmud it said:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.



Again the probabilities are not what I'm denying, all I'm saying is there isn't physical evidence that it really happened besides a few accounts. There is also accounts I believe according to the Hadith that Muhammad split the moon and performed the miracle of giving water from his fingers for ablution. Whether we employ the terms probable, possible or miracle depends entirely on the situation and up to the perspective of the spectator. I'm really not concerned with the topic anymore. Again, I checked "I don't know" as my answer. Regardless of your so-called evidence which amounts to personal accounts no more valuable than Hadith accounts on the prophet Muhammad's day to day activities. Let it go.
 
There is also accounts I believe according to the Hadith that Muhammad split the moon and performed the miracle of giving water from his fingers for ablution. Whether we employ the terms probable, possible or miracle depends entirely on the situation and up to the perspective of the spectator. I'm really not concerned with the topic anymore. Again, I checked "I don't know" as my answer. Regardless of your so-called evidence which amounts to personal accounts no more valuable than Hadith accounts on the prophet Muhammad's day to day activities.

This is where you are going wrong. The purpose of critical scholarship is to identify which sources and events are more likely to be true than others. The crucifixion and splitting the moon are not equally probable based on the rational consideration of evidence.

Won't go into detail though.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
10402782-4685024500201-5012590550381674232-n.jpg
there is evidence that says he did not die on a cross . no cross ……. no crucifixion. he did die but on a timber/tree no cross beam
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The Hadith is narrated by Ibn Abbas. He is the cousin of the prophet. There is a general rule that says whenever the companions say something related to the unknown, such as what is there in the Paradise, then they must have taken it from the prophet. otherwise they should clarify. This is especially true taking into consideration that Muslims believe that the scriptures of old prophets have been distorted, and Muslims were discouraged from reading the ancient scriptures. Yes Shia believe that the Imams have the scriptures of the ancient prophets.

Then the Shiites and many Sunnis believe that the Jewish teachings have infiltrated the Sunni Hadith, through a rabbi called Kaab al Ahbar and others.

During the lifetime of the prophet this rabbi rejected Islam. and later on he joined Umar and Muaawiya and declared his conversion. Many thinks that his conversion was not genuine. He joined the caliph Umar in his journey to Jerusalem and was an influential figure.

Now regarding what happened to Jesus, the general Muslim view is that he is still alive, and he will return after the return of the Mahdi, and will have a great role to play in that time. Yes, there are some details regarding how Jesus was raised, where Muslim believes that there was a time when his soul left his body and then it returned again.
Ok, as far as I know, from Shia prespective, only Hadithes which have a witness from Quran are to be accepted (according to al-Kafi).
There is no Hadith that says, Jesus was not Crucified or someone else was crucified instead of Him. It is only conclusion of people, not a Hadith which actually says Jesus was not crucified.
 

Shia Islam

Quran and Ahlul-Bayt a.s.
Premium Member
Ok, as far as I know, from Shia prespective, only Hadithes which have a witness from Quran are to be accepted (according to al-Kafi).
There is no Hadith that says, Jesus was not Crucified or someone else was crucified instead of Him. It is only conclusion of people, not a Hadith which actually says Jesus was not crucified.

The belief that Jesus was not crucified is something that is so clear for the Muslims.

I just found that the Hadith i mentioned is also available in al-Kafi itself and all of its narrators are among the top greatest Shia narrators. Al-Kafi is available in English. However since I have already mentioned the Hadith i wont try to find its English version. Here is the Hadith in Arabic:

في الكافى على بن ابراهيم حدثنى أبى عن ابن أبى عمير عن جميل بن صالح عن حمران بن أعين عن أبى جعفر عليه السلام قال: ان عيسى عليه السلام وعد أصحابه ليلة رفعه الله اليه فاجتمعوا اليه عند المساء وهم اثنى عشر رجلا فأدخلهم بيتا ثم خرج عليهم من عين في زاوية البيت وهو ينفض رأسه من الماء فقال: ان الله اوحى إلى انه رافعى اليه الساعة و مطهرى من اليهود، فأيكم يلقى عليه شبحى فيقتل ويصلب ويكون معى في درجتى، فقال شاب منهم: أنا ياروح الله، فقال: فانت هوذا، فقال لهم عيسى، اما ان منكم لمن يكفربى قبل أن يصبح اثنى عشرة كفرة، فقال له رجل منهم: انا هو يا نبى الله؟ فقال عيسى: أتحس بذلك في نفسك؟ فلتكن هو. ثم قال لهم عيسى: اما انكم ستفترقون بعدى على ثلث فرق فرقتين مفتريتين على الله في النار، وفرقة تتبع شمعون صادقة على الله في الجنة، ثم رفع الله عيسى من زاوية البيت وهم ينظرون اليه، ثم قال أبوجعفر عليه السلام ان اليهود جائت في طلب عيسى من ليلتهم فأخذوا الرجل الذى قال له عيسى: ان منكم لمن يكفر بى قبل أن يصبح اثنتى عشرة كفرة، واخذوا الشاب الذى القى عليه شبح عيسى عليه السلام فقتل وصلب. وكفر الذى قال له عيسى، تكفر قبل أن تصبح اثنتى عشرة كفرة.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The belief that Jesus was not crucified is something that is so clear for the Muslims.

I just found that the Hadith i mentioned is also available in al-Kafi itself and all of its narrators are among the top greatest Shia narrators. Al-Kafi is available in English. However since I have already mentioned the Hadith i wont try to find its English version. Here is the Hadith in Arabic:

في الكافى على بن ابراهيم حدثنى أبى عن ابن أبى عمير عن جميل بن صالح عن حمران بن أعين عن أبى جعفر عليه السلام قال: ان عيسى عليه السلام وعد أصحابه ليلة رفعه الله اليه فاجتمعوا اليه عند المساء وهم اثنى عشر رجلا فأدخلهم بيتا ثم خرج عليهم من عين في زاوية البيت وهو ينفض رأسه من الماء فقال: ان الله اوحى إلى انه رافعى اليه الساعة و مطهرى من اليهود، فأيكم يلقى عليه شبحى فيقتل ويصلب ويكون معى في درجتى، فقال شاب منهم: أنا ياروح الله، فقال: فانت هوذا، فقال لهم عيسى، اما ان منكم لمن يكفربى قبل أن يصبح اثنى عشرة كفرة، فقال له رجل منهم: انا هو يا نبى الله؟ فقال عيسى: أتحس بذلك في نفسك؟ فلتكن هو. ثم قال لهم عيسى: اما انكم ستفترقون بعدى على ثلث فرق فرقتين مفتريتين على الله في النار، وفرقة تتبع شمعون صادقة على الله في الجنة، ثم رفع الله عيسى من زاوية البيت وهم ينظرون اليه، ثم قال أبوجعفر عليه السلام ان اليهود جائت في طلب عيسى من ليلتهم فأخذوا الرجل الذى قال له عيسى: ان منكم لمن يكفر بى قبل أن يصبح اثنتى عشرة كفرة، واخذوا الشاب الذى القى عليه شبح عيسى عليه السلام فقتل وصلب. وكفر الذى قال له عيسى، تكفر قبل أن تصبح اثنتى عشرة كفرة.
Thanks, interesting Hadith!
This is a Hadith of Abi jaffar, and It is very similar to the other Hadith of Muhammad, confirming it to be a true Hadith.
Both of them indicates one of Companions of Jesus accepted to be like Him, and get killed.
This is subject to interpretations.
By "likeness to Jesus" , can mean either physically, or spiritually.
I take it, to mean spiritually to be come like Christ, by acting and following same divine guidance.

There are some minor differences between two Hadithes. In the other Hadith, it says مکاني which if I understand correctly, it means in My place??
But in the Hadith of Abi Jaffar, it says:

ان الله اوحى إلى انه رافعى اليه الساعة و مطهرى من اليهود، فأيكم يلقى عليه شبحى فيقتل ويصلب ويكون معى في درجتى، فقال شاب منهم: أنا ياروح

If I understand it correctly, here it does not say in my place. But Jesus is asking who will be willing to be like Me and be crucified "with Me" معی
Now, in the first Hadith, although one of Jesus followers accepts to be killed, yet, the Hadith does not go and farther denotes, if he indeed was martyred in place of Jesus. I can see that, as just a test of belief. Like Abraham accepted to sacrifice His son, and passes a test, but at the end He did not.
The second Hadith is confirming Christ was crucified, because He is asking who is willing to be crucified with Him.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
This is a question that is often debated by Muslims and Christians.

The Christians refer to the four gospel accounts that provide clear accounts of Christ's crucifixion. Historians, including atheists usually agree Christ was crucified. When they don't its because they don't believe Jesus existed at all.

Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified at all based on the following verses in the Quran.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.

I didn't vote, but if I was going to make a guess, he might have been crucified, but the exact method of crucifixion was likely not exactly what's commonly depicted.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That's exactly what the Baha'is are saying.
I've never heard the word "embellishment". It's usually "symbolic". Embellishing a story, to me, means exaggerating what really happened. To make some things true and some symbolic? The only way that makes sense to me is to find an easy way around having to say that the gospels are filled with things that make Jesus look like a God/man, but those things never happened.

Millions of people throughout the centuries have followed Jesus without witnessing any such miracle. (Matthew 16:4)
But those miracles are believed, and are used to convince people that Jesus is God. Who else walked on water and rose from the dead? Except, of course, mythical people.

Because they felt inspired by God to do so.
This was your response to... "But why would Christians tell people symbolic, fictional, mythical story and not tell them that the things in the story are all historically true?" So, where ever the gospel writers got their information, the symbolic, fictional parts of the story were already there? And the gospel writers just wrote down their take on those traditions? Did the gospel writers themselves invent the symbolic stories? Christians for the next 2000 years told those stories and knew that those things were symbolic but didn't tell the people?

No, most Christians believe and are taught those things are true. Were they "inspired" by God to do this? Kind of. They are told to believe and not to doubt. They read and are told how to interpret what the Bible says. And, part of not doubting, is to believe the Bible is historically true.

Then you can call God a liar.
Or, what people say and believe about God is a lie. Since some gods weren't real, then who was the liar? The religious leaders that had people burn children on an alter or throw virgins into a volcano to appease the gods, or the gods? You could say that some of those leaders truly believed those gods were real. So you could say they weren't lying. But, somewhere down the line, where did that practice begin? Someone had a vision? Someone thought they heard god's voice? So they weren't lying either? Maybe, but there's some deception going on. And maybe it's in the mind of those that think they've heard god's voice?

I sure hope that I would not have listened to a voice that claimed to be God and told me to stick a knife into the heart of my son, and then burn him as an offering to that voice. But that was Abraham. And that was the One, True God that did that. Or, in this case, I'm with the Baha'is... some things in the Bible are meant to be taken symbolically.
 

Shia Islam

Quran and Ahlul-Bayt a.s.
Premium Member
Thanks, interesting Hadith!
This is a Hadith of Abi jaffar, and It is very similar to the other Hadith of Muhammad, confirming it to be a true Hadith.
Both of them indicates one of Companions of Jesus accepted to be like Him, and get killed.
This is subject to interpretations.
By "likeness to Jesus" , can mean either physically, or spiritually.
I take it, to mean spiritually to be come like Christ, by acting and following same divine guidance.

There are some minor differences between two Hadithes. In the other Hadith, it says مکاني which if I understand correctly, it means in My place??
But in the Hadith of Abi Jaffar, it says:

ان الله اوحى إلى انه رافعى اليه الساعة و مطهرى من اليهود، فأيكم يلقى عليه شبحى فيقتل ويصلب ويكون معى في درجتى، فقال شاب منهم: أنا ياروح

If I understand it correctly, here it does not say in my place. But Jesus is asking who will be willing to be like Me and be crucified "with Me" معی
Now, in the first Hadith, although one of Jesus followers accepts to be killed, yet, the Hadith does not go and farther denotes, if he indeed was martyred in place of Jesus. I can see that, as just a test of belief. Like Abraham accepted to sacrifice His son, and passes a test, but at the end He did not.
The second Hadith is confirming Christ was crucified, because He is asking who is willing to be crucified with Him.


Hi,

"with Me" معی

Is connected with the two words:

"في درجتىin my rank"

So the meaning is that he will be with me in my rank.

Then the remaining of the Hadith says it clearly that Jesus was raised and then this man was crucified.

The first Hadith first Hadith has a continuation too.

The verse is also clear:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

All in all,

For Muslims, this point is not something ambiguous.

You can also search the interpretation of the verse, where I am sure you will find other evidences.

If I were not too much busy I would have myself try to bring more Hadiths here.

Anyhow it was nice talking to you.

All the best.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I've never heard the word "embellishment". It's usually "symbolic". Embellishing a story, to me, means exaggerating what really happened. To make some things true and some symbolic? The only way that makes sense to me is to find an easy way around having to say that the gospels are filled with things that make Jesus look like a God/man, but those things never happened.

Moses parting the sea, a worldwide flood that covers the whole earth, the earth being created in six days, and a man who is God incarnate who comes back from the dead and ascends through the stratosphere. There's plenty of embellishment going on, for sure.

But those miracles are believed, and are used to convince people that Jesus is God. Who else walked on water and rose from the dead? Except, of course, mythical people.

Its entirely up to us what we believe or disbelieve. We can't change the past but we can change the future and ourselves. Its futile to blame our ancestors. We all need to step up and take responsibility for today.

It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 143-144

This was your response to... "But why would Christians tell people symbolic, fictional, mythical story and not tell them that the things in the story are all historically true?" So, where ever the gospel writers got their information, the symbolic, fictional parts of the story were already there? And the gospel writers just wrote down their take on those traditions? Did the gospel writers themselves invent the symbolic stories? Christians for the next 2000 years told those stories and knew that those things were symbolic but didn't tell the people?

No, most Christians believe and are taught those things are true. Were they "inspired" by God to do this? Kind of. They are told to believe and not to doubt. They read and are told how to interpret what the Bible says. And, part of not doubting, is to believe the Bible is historically true.

This Christian belief system has worked well for centuries. Up until relatively recently the distinction between historical and religious truth hasn't mattered. It does now and we wouldn't be having this conversation if that were not true.

Or, what people say and believe about God is a lie. Since some gods weren't real, then who was the liar? The religious leaders that had people burn children on an alter or throw virgins into a volcano to appease the gods, or the gods? You could say that some of those leaders truly believed those gods were real. So you could say they weren't lying. But, somewhere down the line, where did that practice begin? Someone had a vision? Someone thought they heard god's voice? So they weren't lying either? Maybe, but there's some deception going on. And maybe it's in the mind of those that think they've heard god's voice?

I sure hope that I would not have listened to a voice that claimed to be God and told me to stick a knife into the heart of my son, and then burn him as an offering to that voice. But that was Abraham. And that was the One, True God that did that. Or, in this case, I'm with the Baha'is... some things in the Bible are meant to be taken symbolically.

The book of Genesis is largely mythical, most likely including the sacrifice of Isaac and Ishmael.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The Bible is correct and the Qu'ran is correct. The Muslims are wrong about the Qu'ran as usual. When it comes to Jesus they put blinders on.

Jesus was placed on the cross which is interpreted as being crucified but He left the body before death so the crucifixion was never completed so one could say He wasn't crucified.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Was Jesus crucified?

Did King Arthur remove the sword from the stone?

I believe in one account L'Mort de Athur he did but I don't think Welch myth has it although it does have a dragon. The fact it that the Mort account was about knights and there were no knights in the time of Arthur Pendragon. So I believe the Mort is a fictional story based partially on the Welch myth.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Hi,

"with Me" معی

Is connected with the two words:

"في درجتىin my rank"

So the meaning is that he will be with me in my rank.

Then the remaining of the Hadith says it clearly that Jesus was raised and then this man was crucified.

The first Hadith first Hadith has a continuation too.

The verse is also clear:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

All in all,

For Muslims, this point is not something ambiguous.

You can also search the interpretation of the verse, where I am sure you will find other evidences.

If I were not too much busy I would have myself try to bring more Hadiths here.

Anyhow it was nice talking to you.

All the best.
I am not sure if In Islam, they believe a believer can possibly have the same rank or station as a Messenger of God. So, if an ordinary Muslim believer is Martyred, can we say, he has same rank as Muhammad, because He was killed in the path of God? Or equal ranking as Imam Ali?
I suppose in Christianity would be the same. Can someone who was martyred have same rank as Jesus?
What is also interesting according to this Hadith, Jesus followers called Jesus, Spirit of God!

The way I see this Hadith, is, Jesus is asking who will be like me, so that he will be killed and crucified [like me] to join me in ranking [of Martyrdom].
Anyways, we can leave it as is.

It was nice talking to you as well.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yeah, none of the "bullet points" you've posted are actually reality.

I love that presentation. This pastor refutes unsubstantiated by actual proof in history atheist claims that Christianity is entirely pagan in the same mannerism as the atheists sarcasm attacks Christianity.

And this is perfect. Right around Christmas every year atheists, who exchange gifts because they're materialists and yet do so ON the day Christians recognize as Christ's date of birth. Even though his date of birth is not stated in scripture.
It refutes their claim that Christmas is entirely pagan.
Christ comes in handy once a year for the atheist. Presents!
happy-smiley-emoticon.gif




Ha, well denial is one way to get around it.

I'm not sure why you think those claims are "unsubstantiated by actual proof in history"????
All of those bullet points are from the most current biblical PhD scholar
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

everything on that list is sourced and the sources are listed. A video by a pastor giving opinions as a way to argue against current PhD scholarship is hilarious.


"refutes unsubstantiated by actual proof in history"

The pastor didn't give one single source and he has no historicity cred? That's your response. HA !



Even the early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr (Dialogue 69) admitted Christianity was pagan:

When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse.



As to Christmas, it's a secular holiday where people exchange gifts. It has nothing to do with any religion for those who are not religious.
Dec 25 was a common birthday for some pagan gods and the early church used it for that reason.
But the reason it's pagan are because of the things on that list and much more parallels to other mystery religions.



Notice - SOURCES....



Osiris
Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions!

Plutarch writes that “Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle,” and taught him lessons, and then “Osiris consorted with Isis after his death and she became the mother of Harpocrates.” It’s hard to get more explicit than that. Contrary to Ehrman, there is no mention of Osiris not being in his resurrected body at that point. To the contrary, every version of his myth has him revive only after Isis reassembles and reanimates his corpse. As Plutarch says, “the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again” (On Isis and Osiris 54).

And indeed, carved on the walls of the pyramids centuries before Christianity began were the declarations of the goddess Isis (or Horus, or their agents), “I have come to thee…that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs…raise thyself up, king, [as for] Osiris; thou livest!” (Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670); “Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages!” (Pyramid Texts 1363a-b, = Utterance 553); “[As for] Osiris, collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages; the tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; the double doors of heaven are open for thee…thy soul is in thy body…raise thyself up!” (Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me. (As even confirmed by the most recent translation of James P. Allen, cf. pp. 190, 224-25, 272. The spells he clarifies are sung to and about the resident Pharaoh, but in the role of Osiris, receiving the same resurrection as Osiris, e.g. “there has been done for me what was done for my father Osiris on the day of tying bones together, of making functional the feet,” “do for him that which you did for his brother Osiris on the day,” etc.)
Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens. So in fact, contrary to Ehrman (who evidently never actually read any of the sources on this point), Plutarch says the belief that Osiris went to Hades was false (On Isis and Osiris 78); and yet even in that “public” tale, Osiris rules in Hades in his old body of flesh, restored to life. Hence still plainly resurrected. But as Plutarch explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58), the esoteric truth was that the god’s death and resurrection occurs in sublunar space, after each year descending and taking on a mortal body to die in; and that event definitely involved coming back to life in a new superior body, in which Osiris ascends to a higher realm to rule from above, all exactly as was said of the risen Jesus (who no more remained on earth than Osiris did). The only difference is that when importing this into Judaism, which had not a cyclical-eternal but a linear-apocalyptic conception of theological history, they converted the god’s dying-and-rising to a singular apocalyptic event.

And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire. But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections.” Not just that one. Plutarch names Dionysus as but an example (and by other names “Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes“). And we know for a fact this Dionysus wasn’t the only example Plutarch would have known. Plutarch only names him because he was so closely associated with Osiris, and the most famous.
 
Top