Did the witnesses see Issa (Jesus) die on the cross?

[SA Huguenot]

I have a question that over 10 years, not a single Muslim could answer
If we read the English translation of Sura 4:157, we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross!
The Quran actually say that "It was made to appear as if Jesus died on the cross.
Now, if we take the quran on its word, it has a dire consequences to the crucifixion, because it says:

1. There was people who viewed the crucifixion, and they saw Jesus die on the cross.
2. They were truthfull witnesses, but they actually did not see jesus die on the cross, it was only made to appear as if it was Jesus who died there.
3. the one who made it to appear was Allah.

If this is the case, then the New Testament is 100% correct as an eye witness event to the crucifixion.
What does this make Allah?
A god that cheated everyone for 600 years in believing what they saw?


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: 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.

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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

 

[Thief]

so the trial and whipping didn't happen either?

 

[leov]

I have a question that over 10 years, not a single Muslim could answer
If we read the English translation of Sura 4:157, we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross!
The Quran actually say that "It was made to appear as if Jesus died on the cross.
Now, if we take the quran on its word, it has a dire consequences to the crucifixion, because it says:

1. There was people who viewed the crucifixion, and they saw Jesus die on the cross.
2. They were truthfull witnesses, but they actually did not see jesus die on the cross, it was only made to appear as if it was Jesus who died there.
3. the one who made it to appear was Allah.

If this is the case, then the New Testament is 100% correct as an eye witness event to the crucifixion.
What does this make Allah?
A god that cheated everyone for 600 years in believing what they saw?


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: 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.

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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

I understand that many 'heretic' Gnostics were pushed out from Roman Empire to the East, they influenced Koran.
"The Gnostic Sage Basilides also believed that the crucifixion was a hoax to mock the Demiurge and his angelic mafia, except that poor Simon of Cyrene was nailed to a cross. The Second Treatise to the Great Seth has a Simon replacing Jesus, but it’s unclear which Simon."
How Did the Gnostics View the Crucifixion of Jesus? - Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to the Religious Debates forum***​

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a question that over 10 years, not a single Muslim could answer
If we read the English translation of Sura 4:157, we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross!
The Quran actually say that "It was made to appear as if Jesus died on the cross.
Now, if we take the quran on its word, it has a dire consequences to the crucifixion, because it says:

1. There was people who viewed the crucifixion, and they saw Jesus die on the cross.
2. They were truthfull witnesses, but they actually did not see jesus die on the cross, it was only made to appear as if it was Jesus who died there.
3. the one who made it to appear was Allah.

If this is the case, then the New Testament is 100% correct as an eye witness event to the crucifixion.
What does this make Allah?
A god that cheated everyone for 600 years in believing what they saw?


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: 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.

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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

Please read notes # 696,697,698,699 in the following links:
The Holy Quran
The Holy Quran
The Holy Quran
The Holy Quran

and one will know as to what happened with Jesus, as I understand.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a question that over 10 years, not a single Muslim could answer
If we read the English translation of Sura 4:157, we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross!
The Quran actually say that "It was made to appear as if Jesus died on the cross.
Now, if we take the quran on its word, it has a dire consequences to the crucifixion, because it says:

1. There was people who viewed the crucifixion, and they saw Jesus die on the cross.
2. They were truthfull witnesses, but they actually did not see jesus die on the cross, it was only made to appear as if it was Jesus who died there.
3. the one who made it to appear was Allah.

If this is the case, then the New Testament is 100% correct as an eye witness event to the crucifixion.
What does this make Allah?
A god that cheated everyone for 600 years in believing what they saw?


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: 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.

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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

"we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross"

How did one come to that conclusion? Please quote words of Quran in Arabic text, only that is considered Quran, no translation is its substitute, please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

so the trial and whipping didn't happen either?

Quran just mentions the circumstances under which the event of Jesus' crucifixion took place and the end result of the event, not its details. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thief]

Quran just mentions the circumstances of the event of Jesus' crucifixion and the end result of the event, not its details. Right, please?

Regards

then to focus on the event of the execution...….

the Quran speaks as if the event was staged....
as if some plot of deception was played

is that the thrust of this discussion?

 

[SA Huguenot]

"we find that the witnesses during the crucifixion definately saw Jesus die on the cross"

How did one come to that conclusion? Please quote words of Quran in Arabic text, only that is considered Quran, no translation is its substitute, please.

Regards

Easy
It was made to appear to them!"
I want to know :
What did the witnesses saw?
They saw Jesus was made to appear to them as being crucified and died on the cross.
Is this not what the Quran say?
It was made to appear!!!!!
Wou should answer to me what it means, not I to you.
believe me, no Muslim wants to answer this question.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Quran just mentions the circumstances of the event of Jesus' crucifixion and the end result of the event, not its details. Right, please?

Regards

Ahhh!!!!
got ya,
You are a Muslim in disguise.
The Quran say the following in 4: 157
jesus did not die on the cross.
It was only made to appear as if he died on the cross!
Am I right?

 

[SA Huguenot]

then to focus on the event of the execution...….

the Quran speaks as if the event was staged....
as if some plot of deception was played

is that the thrust of this discussion?

I could not have worded it better than your summary.
Thanks for your input.
This is exactly what I find from the Quran.
The Quran claims that the Crucifixion of Jesus and his death was "STAGED".
The Greatest show on Earth ever.
Everyone saw Jesus being crucified, and how he died, but it was a grand show directed by Allah.
This audience, or as I call them witnesses to the crucifixion, went home and told everyone what they saw at the theatre Golgotah, and some even wrote the play down so that people can remember what happened. For 600 years everyone spoke about this play, and they participated in it by giving their lives as part of this grand show when persecuted because of what they believed the original actors saw.
Then comes the Director, 600 years later and say:
Oops!!!
Sorry guys, it did not realy happen.
Whilst everyone was enjoying this show, I actually replaced the lead actor, and you did not even notice what I did.

This is amaizing!
Allah is all powerfull and amaizing in writing a plot!

 

[paarsurrey]

then to focus on the event of the execution...….

the Quran speaks as if the event was staged....
as if some plot of deception was played

is that the thrust of this discussion?

Not at all, please.
Take the first verse:
[4:155]
وَ رَفَعۡنَا فَوۡقَہُمُ الطُّوۡرَ بِمِیۡثَاقِہِمۡ وَ قُلۡنَا لَہُمُ ادۡخُلُوا الۡبَابَ سُجَّدًا وَّ قُلۡنَا لَہُمۡ لَا تَعۡدُوۡا فِی السَّبۡتِ وَ اَخَذۡنَا مِنۡہُمۡ مِّیۡثَاقًا غَلِیۡظًا ﴿۱۵۵﴾
And We raised high above them the Mount while making a covenant with them, and We said to them, ‘Enter the gate submissively,’ and We said to them, ‘Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath.’ And We took from them a firm covenant.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 4: An-Nisa'
What does one get from the above verse about the parties that lived in Judea and Galilee?:

1. I mean the Jews,
2. the rulers in those areas
3. and the followers of Jesus who until Jesus' migration from those area were only Jews and none of them to my knowledge was from the Gentiles, and also Jesus' mission was exclusively for the Jews more specifically for all the twelve tribes of Israel of which only two lived there and the rest ten had been exiled to different lands in the East.Jesus' followers had not been named after the pagan-Christ concept of the nations around, since long. It was Paul who very cleverly named the follower of Jesus as Christians, Jesus had never named them as such, his claim was of Messiah or the Mashiach (Jeremiah 23,5) (Isaiah 11,2-5) (Jeremiah 33,15), which was neither god nor son of god as per their and Jesus' religion called Judaism.

Right, please?
Regards

 

[SA Huguenot]

Not at all, please.
Take the first verse:
[4:155]
وَ رَفَعۡنَا فَوۡقَہُمُ الطُّوۡرَ بِمِیۡثَاقِہِمۡ وَ قُلۡنَا لَہُمُ ادۡخُلُوا الۡبَابَ سُجَّدًا وَّ قُلۡنَا لَہُمۡ لَا تَعۡدُوۡا فِی السَّبۡتِ وَ اَخَذۡنَا مِنۡہُمۡ مِّیۡثَاقًا غَلِیۡظًا ﴿۱۵۵﴾
And We raised high above them the Mount while making a covenant with them, and We said to them, ‘Enter the gate submissively,’ and We said to them, ‘Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath.’ And We took from them a firm covenant.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 4: An-Nisa'
What does one get from the above verse about the parties that lived in Judea and Galilee?:

1. I mean the Jews,
2. the rulers in those areas
3. and the followers of Jesus who until Jesus' migration from those area were only Jews and none of them to my knowledge was from the Gentiles, and also Jesus' mission was exclusively for the Jews more specifically for all the twelve tribes of Israel of which only two lived there and the rest ten had been exiled to different lands in the East.Jesus' followers had not been named after the pagan-Christ concept of the nations around, since long. It was Paul who very cleverly named the follower of Jesus as Christians, Jesus had never named them as such, his claim was of Messiah or the Mashiach (Jeremiah 23,5) (Isaiah 11,2-5) (Jeremiah 33,15), which was neither god nor son of god as per their and Jesus' religion called Judaism.

Right, please?
Regards

All this long discussions and nothing about the fact that the Quran is clear:
The witnesses at the Crucifixion saw Jesus die on the cross!

Right Please?
Regards

 

[Thief]

Jesus' mission was exclusively for the Jews

this one item I must cross

He did send His disciples to teach all...including the Gentiles

 

[paarsurrey]

this one item I must cross

He did send His disciples to teach all...including the Gentiles

Not exactly:
"This is the only mention of the group in the Bible. The number is seventy in some manuscripts of the Alexandrian (such as Codex Sinaiticus) and Caesarean text traditions but seventy-two in most other Alexandrian and Western texts. It may derive from the seventy nations of Genesis 10 or the many other occurrences of the number seventy in the Bible, or the seventy-two translators of the Septuagint from the Letter of Aristeas.[5] In translating the Vulgate, Jerome selected the reading of seventy-two.

The Gospel of Luke is not alone among the synoptic gospels in containing multiple episodes in which Jesus sends out his followers on missions. The first occasion (Luke 9:1–6) is closely based on the "limited commission" mission in Mark Mark 6:6–13, which however recounts the sending out of the twelve apostles, rather than seventy, though with similar details. The parallels (also Matthew Matthew 9:35, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 10:5–42) suggest a common origin in the hypothesized Q document. Luke also mentions the Great Commission to "all nations" (Luke 24:44–49) but in less detail than Matthew's account and Mark 16:19–20 mentions the Dispersion of the Apostles.

What has been said to the seventy (two) in Luke 10:4 is referred in passing to the Twelve in Luke 22:35:

He said to them, "When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?" "No, nothing," they replied."
Seventy disciples - Wikipedia

Luke was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus life:

"Some scholars[103][104] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[105]

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD.[106][107][108][109]"
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

I ,therefore, understand it never happened that Jesus' mission included the Gentiles.

Regards

 

[Thief]

Not exactly:
"This is the only mention of the group in the Bible. The number is seventy in some manuscripts of the Alexandrian (such as Codex Sinaiticus) and Caesarean text traditions but seventy-two in most other Alexandrian and Western texts. It may derive from the seventy nations of Genesis 10 or the many other occurrences of the number seventy in the Bible, or the seventy-two translators of the Septuagint from the Letter of Aristeas.[5] In translating the Vulgate, Jerome selected the reading of seventy-two.

The Gospel of Luke is not alone among the synoptic gospels in containing multiple episodes in which Jesus sends out his followers on missions. The first occasion (Luke 9:1–6) is closely based on the "limited commission" mission in Mark Mark 6:6–13, which however recounts the sending out of the twelve apostles, rather than seventy, though with similar details. The parallels (also Matthew Matthew 9:35, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 10:5–42) suggest a common origin in the hypothesized Q document. Luke also mentions the Great Commission to "all nations" (Luke 24:44–49) but in less detail than Matthew's account and Mark 16:19–20 mentions the Dispersion of the Apostles.

What has been said to the seventy (two) in Luke 10:4 is referred in passing to the Twelve in Luke 22:35:

He said to them, "When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?" "No, nothing," they replied."
Seventy disciples - Wikipedia

Luke was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus life:

"Some scholars[103][104] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[105]

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD.[106][107][108][109]"
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

I ,therefore, understand it never happened that Jesus' mission included the Gentiles.

Regards

and yet.....Christian faith has spread

even unto the Gentiles

 

[paarsurrey]

and yet.....Christian faith has spread
even unto the Gentiles

It is not Jesus' religion. It is Paul's Pagan-Chirst-ianity, it has got nothing to Jesus' teachings. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thief]

It is not Jesus' religion. It is Paul's Pagan-Chirst-ianity, it has got nothing to Jesus' teachings. Right, please?

Regards

as a rogue....I would agree

Christians don't lean to the parables
they lean to the ritual and dogma

still.....the crucifixion is central to Christian faith
that event sparked the turn of faith

to say it was staged.....didn't happen
kicks the cornerstone out of the foundation

 

[SA Huguenot]

It is not Jesus' religion. It is Paul's Pagan-Chirst-ianity, it has got nothing to Jesus' teachings. Right, please?

Regards

Why do you continiously use the phrase, "it is Pauls pagan Christ ianity?
Paul never said a single thing against what the Apostles and Old Testament wrote.
As a matter of fact, paul lived amongst the disciples and apostles, and was taught by them.
Your claim is something that Ahmad Deedad concocted in an attempt to consolidate the Christian religion with the hatred from the Quran against the Trinity.

Tel you what,
lets go to the debate forum one on one and debate the Trinity.
Just be aware, you will destroy the Quran if you accept.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It is not Jesus' religion. It is Paul's Pagan-Chirst-ianity, it has got nothing to Jesus' teachings. Right, please?

Regards

I mean, look!
You can not even answer me on Sura 4: 157!
Just as thousands of Muslims could not do that over 10 years.
In 4: 157 we see how Allah somehow staged the crucifixion and the witnesses did see the crucifixion.
there is only 2 ways out of this Islamic predicament.
1. Accept that Muhammad did not like the Crucifixion narative, and he decided to come up with this claim that it did not happen.
2. Allah deliberatey deceived the people at the Crucifixion out of hatred of the ressurrection of Jesus, because Allah is not YHWH. If this is the case, John is quite correct to say that anyone who deliveres another Gospel than the ressurection of Christ, Is Satan!

Take your pick, or explain 4: 157