• 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!

Why Quran rejects crucifixion of Christ by the Jews?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
@InvestigateTruth,

News Flash - The Jews did not crucify Jesus. The Jews did not kill Jesus. If anyone, it was the Romans.

Why would you think otherwise?

(Acts 2:22-23) "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

(Acts 2:36) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Right... Sure he did...

What prophesies did he not fulfill? There were lots of them, many of which he had no control over.

Right...now the only problem is how the NT retroactively changed things in the OT to make everything line up. o_O

Please provide references for those...I'd like to see them and compare with the Tanakh.

No, of course. The Romans were total puppets of the Jews. Next you'll tell me the Jews exiled themselves of their own free will...

No they were exiled because they could not obey their God of their own free will. It was a punishment as I recall.
You don't want to go there do you?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Please provide references for those...I'd like to see them and compare with the Tanakh.
I will, when I'll be near my computer.
You don't want to go there do you?
Go where? You think Jews can't handle the reality of the exile, diaspora and lack of a temple and are not aware it's our fault? We think about it every single day, several times a day. With that being said, to say the Romans were merely poor puppets and aren't to be blamed for anything is garbage. Look at it this way: God wants X to happen, but if this random empire chooses to actually be benevolent, so X will happen by a different empire. The Romans weren't exactly benevolent.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
This is the type of answer that puts any debate/discussion on hold. "Well, off I go to read who knows how many books by this archeologist with the possibility of finding out that everything he says may just be a wild theory, and then going off to read who knows how many books by other archeologists with opposite positions and then figuring it out for myself." :rolleyes: edit: Not mocking, just saying that if there's some concrete, definitive evidence, I'm sure it could be presented here. A pottery shard, a scroll scrap, something, you know?

If I've been following correctly, you claim that Judean Jews totally hated Galileen Jews and therefore it makes sense that Jews hated Jesus and therefore, they really are at fault for killing him.
Which brings up another question: If Jesus was really originally from Beth Lehem, and he was from the family of the royal Davidic bloodline, why was he supposedly hated as a Galileen Jew? He wasn't really a Galileen. He just happened to be from Nazareth...


John 1:45-46 - Can Any Good Thing Come From Nazareth?
www.bible.ca/ef/expository-john-1-45-46.htm
This tendency is nothing new; it went on in first century Israel as well. ... And so he asks his famous question: can any good thing come out of Nazareth (John 1:46)? ... John 7:40-52): how can such a good thing as the Messiah come out of Nazareth or even Galilee, since the Messiah is to come from Bethlehem and ostensibly grow up in the ...
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I would like to get answer on this from:
1. Christians who believe in Bible. What was Muhammads purpose of rejecting crucifixion and what goal was He seeking by this? Please state your reasoning and evidences.

I believe you are asking the wrong group for this. As a Christian, and not knowing Muhammad personally, I have no idea why he did this.

What I can say is Sura 4:169[171] Say not... three, "Namely, God, Jesus, Mary.", apparently he didn't have it all together. Perhaps he was just trying to reconcile all religions? Who knows why except maybe those of the Muslim faith. Maybe you should ask them?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Hezekiah is one. Ha Shamar is another. There were many. I dont know if someone made a list of them in a website, but Josephus mentions some of them in the antiquities of the Jews.

Hezekiah was a king and died of natural causes.

I can't find any reference to Ha Shamar.. Doesn't Ha mean mountain or something?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
This is the type of answer that puts any debate/discussion on hold. "Well, off I go to read who knows how many books by this archeologist with the possibility of finding out that everything he says may just be a wild theory, and then going off to read who knows how many books by other archeologists with opposite positions and then figuring it out for myself." :rolleyes: edit: Not mocking, just saying that if there's some concrete, definitive evidence, I'm sure it could be presented here. A pottery shard, a scroll scrap, something, you know?

If I've been following correctly, you claim that Judean Jews totally hated Galileen Jews and therefore it makes sense that Jews hated Jesus and therefore, they really are at fault for killing him.
Which brings up another question: If Jesus was really originally from Beth Lehem, and he was from the family of the royal Davidic bloodline, why was he supposedly hated as a Galileen Jew? He wasn't really a Galileen. He just happened to be from Nazareth...

There are two towns named Bethlehem mentioned in the Bible There are two towns named Bethlehem mentioned in the Bible; the famous one in Judah, the other one in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15). Bethlehem-Judah is first mentioned as the place formerly known as Ephrath (Genesis 35:16), where Rachel gives birth to Benjamin and dies (Genesis 35:19).
 

sooda

Veteran Member
2 Bethlehems

Two-Bethlehems--DM2--for-in-the-article.jpg
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
There are two towns named Bethlehem mentioned in the Bible There are two towns named Bethlehem mentioned in the Bible; the famous one in Judah, the other one in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15). Bethlehem-Judah is first mentioned as the place formerly known as Ephrath (Genesis 35:16), where Rachel gives birth to Benjamin and dies (Genesis 35:19).
I know this. So you say Jesus was of the Galileean one?

That's just sad... (for Christians)
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I know this. So you say Jesus was of the Galileean one?

That's just sad... (for Christians)

We have no way of knowing.

But, most of Jesus ministry was in Galilee and most of the disciples were from Galilee.

Why are you so petty?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Why are you so petty?
Petty how? Jesus's origins don't mean much to me. However, I'm aware that Christians think it's important to trace him back to King David as much as possible, which is why he was apparently born in Beth Lehem, apparently either of his parents or both of them were descended from royalty and so forth. Yet you, sooda, surprise me time and again: you describe yourself as a Christian yet appear to be on some sort of rampage or something to disprove core beliefs both from the OT and from the NT. And why? Because archeological theories trump religious texts, I guess...
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Petty how? Jesus's origins don't mean much to me. However, I'm aware that Christians think it's important to trace him back to King David as much as possible, which is why he was apparently born in Beth Lehem, apparently either of his parents or both of them were descended from royalty and so forth. Yet you, sooda, surprise me time and again: you describe yourself as a Christian yet appear to be on some sort of rampage or something to disprove core beliefs both from the OT and from the NT. And why? Because archeological theories trump religious texts, I guess...

There is a lot we don't know.. and everybody fiddled with scripture to make it fit .. I think archaeology stands on its own unless you are one of those "Bible archaeologists".

For instance.

Why is Jesus often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth ...
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-of-Nazareth.html
Jan 02, 2020 · Question: "Why is Jesus often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth?" Answer: Jesus was referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” for several reasons. For one thing, in Bible times people were often identified by their native area or place of residence.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Bible archaeologists
I assume I will be if I decide to pursue a career in archeology. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Have you heard of the altar found on Mt. Ebal by Adam Zertal? It's very similar to descriptions in the Tanach. Of course, Israel Finkelstein, that you mentioned, doesn't think it's the one from the Book of Joshua. As it turns out, Finkelstein consistently believes that large portions of the Tanach were made up. Fiction. I don't know how a person of faith can buy that sort of stuff. By the way, Zertal wasn't a religious person at all. But he frequently used the Tanach as a basis for his work.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I assume I will be if I decide to pursue a career in archeology. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Have you heard of the altar found on Mt. Ebal by Adam Zertal? It's very similar to descriptions in the Tanach. Of course, Israel Finkelstein, that you mentioned, doesn't think it's the one from the Book of Joshua. As it turns out, Finkelstein consistently believes that large portions of the Tanach were made up. Fiction. I don't know how a person of faith can buy that sort of stuff. By the way, Zertal wasn't a religious person at all. But he frequently used the Tanach as a basis for his work.


The problem IMO is that Jerusalem was tiny … less than 10 acres and 1000 people.. They couldn't field a big army or feed them. Joshua may have had some skirmishes but he didn't have any wars or destroy any Canaanite cities. He's a nationalistic hero of legend...
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem IMO is that Jerusalem was tiny … less than 10 acres and 1000 people.. They couldn't field a big army or feed them. Joshua may have had some skirmishes but he didn't have any wars or destroy any Canaanite cities. He's a nationalistic hero of legend...
I would ask for a source, but you'll probably just tell me to read Mr. Finkelstein... If a non-believer would tell me this, I'd understand. I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand. It just seems to me a bit egotistical to assume that we, the 21st century people, already know everything about everything when new discoveries are made every day...
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I would ask for a source, but you'll probably just tell me to read Mr. Finkelstein... If a non-believer would tell me this, I'd understand. I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand. It just seems to me a bit egotistical to assume that we, the 21st century people, already know everything about everything when new discoveries are made every day...

Why so defensive? It is what it is.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
Biblical Sites & Placesjerusalem/ancient...
Jan 11, 2019 · Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Why so defensive? It is what it is
Certainly, if you're anti-Bible. If not, then you'd know that in terms of biblical discoveries, people are biased either way. Either they're out there to prove the truth of the Bible or they're out there to disprove it. Those are the two sides of the spectrum and researchers fall somewhere in-between.
So it's not really "it is what it is". It is what your personal bias is.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Certainly, if you're anti-Bible. If not, then you'd know that in terms of biblical discoveries, people are biased either way. Either they're out there to prove the truth of the Bible or they're out there to disprove it. Those are the two sides of the spectrum and researchers fall somewhere in-between.
So it's not really "it is what it is". It is what your personal bias is.

Questioning the accuracy of scripture shouldn't be so threatening. I think the truth is probably more amazing and powerful than we know. Isn't that why archaeologists and linguists devote so much time to serious study?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Hezekiah was a king and died of natural causes.

I can't find any reference to Ha Shamar.. Doesn't Ha mean mountain or something?

You are talking about a different Hezekiah. He is even earlier than the previous person you cited. Cyrus.

No. Ha doesnt mean mountain.

Please simply make clear what you are really looking for and maybe you will receive some clarity. Where do you intend to take this thread or discussion to? I hope you understand that question.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I believe you are asking the wrong group for this. As a Christian, and not knowing Muhammad personally, I have no idea why he did this.

What I can say is Sura 4:169[171] Say not... three, "Namely, God, Jesus, Mary.", apparently he didn't have it all together. Perhaps he was just trying to reconcile all religions? Who knows why except maybe those of the Muslim faith. Maybe you should ask them?

No. Thats actually a made up story. The verse says la thakooloo salaasa. Do not say three. It doesnt define who the three is. Do your own research. Famous websites are very misleading.
 
Top