The Bahai interpretation of Jesus, the crucifixion, and him in the Qur'an

[Dawnofhope]

If the spirit cannot be killed, how could it be "resurrected"?

Christians believe as Baha’is and historians do, that Jesus was literally crucified and put to death by the Romans. Baha’is also believe Christ was resurrected and ascended to heaven. The majority of Christians view this literally, Baha’is don’t.

What is missing from this debate is the theories that are popular amongst Muslims to account for their belief that Jesus wasn’t crucified and their interpretation of Quran 4:157.

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Christians believe as Baha’is and historians do, that Jesus was literally crucified and put to death by the Romans. Baha’is also believe Christ was resurrected and ascended to heaven. The majority of Christians view this literally, Baha’is don’t.

What is missing from this debate is the theories that are popular amongst Muslims to account for their belief that Jesus wasn’t crucified and their interpretation of Quran 4:157.

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia

The text says "Ma salaboohoo", "Not Crucified Was he" in direct syllable by syllable translation and "he was not crucified" is what it is translated to.

What Christians believe is irrelevant. What Muslims believe is irrelevant. What everyone else believes is not relevant. What is relevant is what the Quran says, and the fact that the Bahai;s believe it is Gods word, and the contradicting belief that Jesus was Crucified.

Also my question in this particular juncture was "If the spirit cannot be killed, how could it be "resurrected"?" and what you just said is absolutely irrelevant.

Honestly this is unbelievable.

 

[firedragon]

Conclusion

I have used several standard aspects of reputable historical method (e.g. the criteria of multiple attestation, of embarrassment, of antiquity).

And the assessment that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is factual is shared by a very wide consensus of scholarship, including many of those unsympathetic to biblical Christianity. In fact, the wideness of the consensus is almost unprecedented in biblical scholarship.

I think it fair to say this manages the bias of my own horizons more than adequately. I am not so sure about others who ignore this consensus.

And so I am confident to say the Bible is absolutely correct and truthful when it says Jesus died by crucifixion and therefore (although I am sorry to put it so bluntly) the Qu’ran is wrong when it asserts Jesus did not die this way.

Crucifixion Historicity

what a bogus argument.

The question is not about the historicity of the crucifixion. What is relevant is what the Quran says, and the fact that the Bahai;s believe it is Gods word, and the contradicting belief that Jesus was Crucified.

 

[Trailblazer]

The question is not about the historicity of the crucifixion. What is relevant is what the Quran says, and the fact that the Bahai;s believe it is Gods word, and the contradicting belief that Jesus was Crucified.

Regarding the historicity, I was not responding to you, I was responding to CG.

The Qur'an is not God's word anymore than the Bible is God's Word because God did not write it. The Qur'an was not even written by Muhammad.

There is no logical reason to believe that the Qur'an is inerrant, not anymore than there is a logical reason to believe the Bible is inerrant.

 

[firedragon]

The Qur'an is not God's word anymore than the Bible is God's Word because God did not write it.

But you claim the Bible is Gods word as well? Okay. Thats good for another thread.

You still claim the Quran is Gods word. Well, normal Bahai theology does. Shogi Effendi does. But you were willing to throw the Quran under the buss by saying the Quran is wrong contradicting Bahaullah himself.

But this is all irrelevant.

There is no logical reason to believe that the Qur'an is inerrant, not anymore than there is a logical reason to believe the Bible is inerrant.

Bible is not relevant.

If you dont believe the Quran is GOds word, then this thread is not relevant to you. If you think the Quran is wrong, that's the only answer that has any decency in it so far in this thread from any bahai.

So I will conclude that you believe the Quran is wrong.

Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you dont believe the Quran is GOds word, then this thread is not relevant to you. If you think the Quran is wrong, that's the only answer that has any decency in it so far in this thread from any bahai.

So I will conclude that you believe the Quran is wrong.

I do not necessarily believe the Qur'an is wrong, but that is one possibility. The other possibility is that the verse means what the Baha'is have been telling you it means, quoted from Shoghi Effendi.

 

[firedragon]

I do not necessarily believe the Qur'an is wrong, but that is one possibility. The other possibility is that the verse means what the Baha'is have been telling you it means, quoted from Shoghi Effendi.

No one has given any meaning from the text of the Quran that it means "he was not crucified". All you and the other Bahai's have done is focus on "death" and "killing'.

Thats a strawman. So you have not been "telling" me that it means something else.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The text says "Ma salaboohoo", "Not Crucified Was he" in direct syllable by syllable translation and "he was not crucified" is what it is translated to.

What Christians believe is irrelevant. What Muslims believe is irrelevant. What everyone else believes is not relevant. What is relevant is what the Quran says, and the fact that the Bahai;s believe it is Gods word, and the contradicting belief that Jesus was Crucified.

Also my question in this particular juncture was "If the spirit cannot be killed, how could it be "resurrected"?" and what you just said is absolutely irrelevant.

Honestly this is unbelievable.

Of course Muslim beliefs are relevant. If the mainstream Muslim interpretation doesn’t have a shred of historical evidence to support it, that’s a problem. If the Muslim interpretation leads to preposterous theories about how the body of Jesus on the cross was substituted for someone else then that is relevant. If varied interpretation from Muslims involves willingness to consider symbolism then it begs the obvious question as to why not view 4:157 less literally. If the clear text of the Gospel outlines Christ’s crucifixion and the Quran affirms the Gospel, the same Gospel in circulation during Muhammad’s lifetime, then that is highly relevant.

 

[firedragon]

Of course Muslim beliefs are relevant.

No. The Quran is relevant, and its text is relevant, because that's the topic.

lingness to consider symbolism then it begs the obvious question as to why not view 4:157 less literally. If the clear text of the Gospel outlines Christ’s crucifixion and the Quran affirms the Gospel, the same Gospel in circulation during Muhammad’s lifetime, then that is highly relevant.

The verse says he was not crucified. You can ignore that phrase all your life, but it does not erase it from the Mushaf. The fact that you believe otherwise directly means your faith contradicts the Quran. You cannot escape that. That is why your fellow Bahai has denounced the Quran already twice in two separate threads.

Have a good day.

 

[Link]

A bogus response as usual.

It says "martyred", not crucified.

This topic is not about "death", its about "crucifixion".

@CG Didymus

Do u think the question is if Jesus was killed or martyred? Or is it about "crucifixion"?

You have a good point. The way I understand these passages, it seemed like Jesus was crucified, but as he never died and came back in 3 days from the grave which showed he was still the leader and light of the time, and was never dead, Quran is saying it's a feign death and it appeared like he was crucified but he wasn't and they didn't kill him for sure.

From what I understand, when he came out of the grave, it was not that he was killed or crucified, it just appeared that he was killed or crucified but he was alive. This synthesis goes well the Gospels and is a way to interpret those verses in a way that has nothing to do with this die for sins stuff but rather Jesus allowed it so that it be a big miracle that he appeared to be killed and this way people's faith in him increases.

 

[Link]

As Jesus (a) and Mohammad (a) both brought back people from death as a sign of their authority, seeing that it appeared like Jesus was killed and crucified but that he was never dead and came back, then brought up to heaven and that all people of the book will believe in him before his death (when he comes back in later times he will die), to me, it just seems clear when reading the Gospels, that is what the Gospels are saying. Sure, he was supposed to be dead by natural rules of universe, but he never died.

 

[firedragon]

As Jesus (a) and Mohammad (a) both brought back people from death as a sign of their authority, seeing that it appeared like Jesus was killed and crucified but that he was never dead and came back, then brought up to heaven and that all people of the book will believe in him before his death (when he comes back in later times he will die), to me, it just seems clear when reading the Gospels, that is what the Gospels are saying. Sure, he was supposed to be dead by natural rules of universe, but he never died.

The topic is about the text brother, and the Bahai belief. I dont mind discussing the other theological implications but as ever, not in this thread.

 

[Link]

The topic is about the text brother, and the Bahai belief. I dont mind discussing the other theological implications but as ever, not in this thread.

You've proven your point in this thread, I would say there is no need to hammer it on. Let who wants to accept it, accept it, and who doesn't, to not, there is no force in religion.

 

[firedragon]

You've proven your point in this thread, I would say there is no need to hammer it on. Let who wants to accept it, accept it, and who doesn't, to not, there is no force in religion.

Ha? Brother. No one is forcing anything on anyone.

Have a good day.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

A bogus response as usual.

It says "martyred", not crucified.

So if Jesus was crucified, it is not counted as Martyrdom?

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. The Quran is relevant, and its text is relevant, because that's the topic.



The verse says he was not crucified. You can ignore that phrase all your life, but it does not erase it from the Mushaf. The fact that you believe otherwise directly means your faith contradicts the Quran. You cannot escape that. That is why your fellow Bahai has denounced the Quran already twice in two separate threads.

Have a good day.

No Baha’i has denounced the Quran as the inescapable reality for Baha’is are the Guardian’s words about the Quran.

The fact is there is no problem with the English translation of 4:157. The clear and obvious meaning is they thought they had crucified and killed Christ but they hadn’t (meaning they hadn’t crucified or killed the spirit of Christ). That is how some early Muslim commentators viewed and there are Muslims today that view it the same way.

I put it to you the only reason you see it so literally is that you have been conditioned by your upbringing and cultural experiences as a Muslim to view this verse so rigidly and dogmatically. How an outsider such as myself views the text is completely different because I don’t live in a world where the verse is viewed literally. Quite the opposite.

From the text itself, both a literal and symbolic interpretation are valid. However the problem with a literal interpretation is the need to ignore a mountain of evidence that Jesus was crucified, then explain away that evidence with the use of preposterous substitutionary theories. The problem for Muslims who take this approach is glaringly obvious.

Here’s a few excerpts from Wikipedia that I referenced above:

Most Islamic traditions categorically deny that Jesus physically died on the cross or otherwise. Most traditions instead teach substitution, or the idea that another person was crucified in Jesus' place. However, some modern Muslim scholars believe that Jesus did indeed die, and references to his survival are symbolic, not literal. This disagreement on the nature of Jesus' death is found within the Islamic canon itself, with the earliest Hadith quoting the companions of Muhammad saying that Jesus had died. Meanwhile, the majority of subsequent Hadith and Tafsir argue in favor of the opposite.

So according to Wikipedia the belief Jesus wasn’t crucified is based on Hadiths, not the Quran.

Ja'far ibn Mansur al-Yaman (d. 958), Abu Hatim Ahmad ibn Hamdan al-Razi (d. 935), Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani (d. 971), Mu'ayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1078) 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 Quranic commentators and Tafsir. More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:

The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts. (3:55; 5:117; 19:33.)

Ayoub, instead of interpreting the passage as a denial of the death of Jesus, instead believes the passage is about God denying men the power to vanquish and destroy God's message. The words, "but they killed him not, nor crucified him." is meant to show that any power humans believe that they have against God is illusory.[82]

Some Islamic reformers, such as Muhammad Rashid Rida, agrees with contemporary commentators interpretation of the denial of Jesus' death as metaphorical.

An early interpretation of verse 3:55 (specifically "I will cause you to die and raise you to myself"), Al-Tabari (d. 923) records an interpretation attributed to Ibn 'Abbas, who used the literal "I will cause you to die" (mumayyitu-ka) in place of the metaphorical mutawaffi-ka "Jesus died", while Wahb ibn Munabbih, an early Jewish convert, is reported to have said "God caused Jesus, son of Mary, to die for three hours during the day, then took him up to himself." Tabari further transmits from Ibn Ishaq: "God caused Jesus to die for seven hours",while at another place reported that a person called Sergius was crucified in place of Jesus. Ibn-al-Athir forwarded the report that it was Judas, the betrayer, while also mentioning the possibility it was a man named Natlianus.

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.

Another report from Ibn Kathir quotes Ishaq Ibn Bishr, on authority of Idris, on authority of Wahb ibn Munabbih, that "God caused him to die for three days, then resurrected him, then raised him."[86][87]

Al-Masudi (d. 956) reported the death of Christ under Tiberius.[85]

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) follows traditions which suggest that a crucifixion did occur, but not with Jesus.[88]After the event, Ibn Kathir reports the people were divided into three groups following three different narratives; The Jacobites believing "God remained with us as long as He willed and then He ascended to Heaven"; the Nestorians believing "The son of God was with us as long as he willed until God raised him to heaven"; and the Muslims believing "The servant and messenger of God, Jesus, remained with us as long as God willed until God raised him to Himself."[89]

Islamic reformer Muhammad Rashid Rida agrees with contemporary commentators interpreting the physical killing of Christ's apostleship as a metaphorical interpretation.

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia

So you can say irrelevant, unbelievable and how the Baha’is have no arguments all you like. You can claim Baha’is are ignoring the obvious. In reality you are simply projecting your subjective beliefs and feelings onto others as far as I can see. It is of course your right and prerogative to believe as you do as it is my right to be a Baha’i, a right that has severe consequences for some Baha’is in some Muslim countries. I wish you well.

 

[firedragon]

No Baha’i has denounced the Quran

Yes, it has happened. So brother, just because you dont do it, dont say "No one does it" because that's acting God.

The fact is there is no problem with the English translation of 4:157. The clear and obvious meaning is they thought they had crucified and killed Christ but they hadn’t (meaning they hadn’t crucified or killed the spirit of Christ). That is how some early Muslim commentators viewed and there are Muslims today that view it the same way.

False. Muslims never ever believed that Jesus was "crucified". No way. Maybe some fringe set, not Muslims in general. So I think you should not make that kind of general statement which is absolutely false. Please dont assume others dont know what Muslim theology is.

Tell me. Since you said "that is how some early muslim commentators viewed", show me who are these "early commentators" you spoke of, and how they believed "The clear and obvious meaning is they thought they had crucified and killed Christ but they hadn’t (meaning they hadn’t crucified or killed the spirit of Christ)".

I will be waiting for that substantiation.

Here’s a few excerpts from Wikipedia that I referenced above:

I have read that Wikipedia page. No one says "The clear and obvious meaning is they thought they had crucified and killed Christ but they hadn’t (meaning they hadn’t crucified or killed the spirit of Christ)".

Also, in that same Wikipedia page it says " According to the Quran, he was neither crucified nor raised from the dead,[citation needed] but was rather saved by God.".

Can you see clearly that your Wikipedia page clearly says "according to the Quran" and that "he was neither crucified"?

Anyway I will wait for your early commentators of Islam.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Anyway I will wait for your early commentators of Islam.

They were clearly mentioned in the text provided.

Ja'far ibn Mansur al-Yaman (d. 958), Abu Hatim Ahmad ibn Hamdan al-Razi (d. 935), Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani (d. 971), Mu'ayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1078) 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 Quranic commentators and Tafsir. More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:

Some Islamic reformers, such as Muhammad Rashid Rida, agrees with contemporary commentators interpretation of the denial of Jesus' death as metaphorical.

Al-Masudi (d. 956) reported the death of Christ under Tiberius.[85]

From above, there are references to eight Islamic commentators, who diverge from the mainstream Islamic position. They appear to support the historicity of Christ's crucifixion along with practically every other Western scholar who has expertise on the subject.

 

[firedragon]

They were clearly mentioned in the text provided.

Not really. Early commentators? Please name them and show what they said.

You cut and pasted this.

Ja'far ibn Mansur al-Yaman (d. 958), Abu Hatim Ahmad ibn Hamdan al-Razi (d. 935), Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani (d. 971), Mu'ayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1078) 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 Quranic commentators and Tafsir. More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:

You have completely missed one of the main statements that "Quran clearly says" and focused on the fringe that seems to help you. I understand why.

I already told you that you would pick some fringe muslims, not general muslim scholars. Thats exactly what you have done. Anyway you picked Ishmaili Shii, and a group of people who are unknown, fringe, cultish, and is a so called "small secret group". So what you claimed about "Early Islamic commentators" is absolutely false.

You are ignoring the Quran. You have thrown the Quran under the bus to further your faith. Thats acting against God who you claim revealed the Quran.

Now lets understand Jafar ibn Mansur al Yaman. Do you know that he was an Ismaili evangelist who worked for the Fatimid government and assisted spread Ishmaili faith where ever he could? Do you know that he claimed some skills that the Quran says is available only to God? He was not a "commentator" or a "Mufassireen" and he never ever claimed to have been. Thus, your claim is false Adrian. Prior to making statements like this and cutting and pasting from somewhere do some research. Or, this is just blind faith. I knew you would go to some fringe people and cut and paste from some wikipedia article as evidence, which is why I said what Muslims believe is not relevant. This is about Bahai belief, and the text of the Qur'an. Unless you embrace all of those Ishmaili's and secret groups you have given above as commentary you think helps you. Tell me. Who wrote the Kithab Al Kashaf? How many years after he died? Have you even read the book?

Ill tell you what. Why dont you read a Tafsir. Since you are embarking on early "Islamic commentators", go to Tafsir of Ibn Abbas. What do you say? That has more authenticity than Kashaf with at least an Isnad.

Be genuine in your research Adrian.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not really. Early commentators? Please name them and show what they said.

You cut and pasted this.

Ja'far ibn Mansur al-Yaman (d. 958), Abu Hatim Ahmad ibn Hamdan al-Razi (d. 935), Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani (d. 971), Mu'ayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1078) 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 Quranic commentators and Tafsir. More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:

You have completely missed one of the main statements that "Quran clearly says" and focused on the fringe that seems to help you. I understand why.

I already told you that you would pick some fringe muslims, not general muslim scholars. Thats exactly what you have done. Anyway you picked Ishmaili Shii, and a group of people who are unknown, fringe, cultish, and is a so called "small secret group". So what you claimed about "Early Islamic commentators" is absolutely false.

You are ignoring the Quran. You have thrown the Quran under the bus to further your faith. Thats acting against God who you claim revealed the Quran.

Now lets understand Jafar ibn Mansur al Yaman. Do you know that he was an Ismaili evangelist who worked for the Fatimid government and assisted spread Ishmaili faith where ever he could? Do you know that he claimed some skills that the Quran says is available only to God? He was not a "commentator" or a "Mufassireen" and he never ever claimed to have been. Thus, your claim is false Adrian. Prior to making statements like this and cutting and pasting from somewhere do some research. Or, this is just blind faith. I knew you would go to some fringe people and cut and paste from some wikipedia article as evidence, which is why I said what Muslims believe is not relevant. This is about Bahai belief, and the text of the Qur'an. Unless you embrace all of those Ishmaili's and secret groups you have given above as commentary you think helps you. Tell me. Who wrote the Kithab Al Kashaf? How many years after he died? Have you even read the book?

Ill tell you what. Why dont you read a Tafsir. Since you are embarking on early "Islamic commentators", go to Tafsir of Ibn Abbas. What do you say? That has more authenticity than Kashaf with at least an Isnad.

Be genuine in your research Adrian.

Why am I not surprised that you will refer to someone who contradicts mainstream Muslim thought as 'fringe'?

Let's examine some of the commentators mentioned:

1/ Mahmoud Ayoub

Mahmoud M. Ayoub is a Lebanese scholar and professor of religious and inter-faith studies.

Mahmoud M. Ayoub - Wikipedia

Looks legitimate.

2/ Muhammad Rashid Rida

Muhammad Rashid Rida (Arabic: محمد رشيد رضا‎, romanized: Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā; 23 September 1865[1] or 18 October 1865[2] – 22 August 1935)[2] was a prominent Islamic reformer and revivalist. Rida is said to have been one of the most influential and controversial scholars of his generation[7] and was influenced by the movement for Islamic Modernism founded in Egypt by Muhammad Abduh

Rashid Rida - Wikipedia

Looks legitimate.

3/ Al-Masúdi

Al-Mas'udi (Arabic: أَبُو ٱلْحَسَن عَلِيّ ٱبْن ٱلْحُسَيْن ٱبْن عَلِيّ ٱلْمَسْعُودِيّ‎, ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Masʿūdī; c. 896–956) was an Arab historian, geographer and traveler. He is sometimes referred to as the "Herodotus of the Arabs".[1][2] A polymath and prolific author of over twenty works on theology, history (Islamic and universal), geography, natural science and philosophy, his celebrated magnum opus Murūj al-Dhahab wa-Ma'ādin al-Jawhar (Arabic: مُرُوج ٱلذَّهَب وَمَعَادِن ٱلْجَوْهَر‎), combines universal history with scientific geography, social commentary and biography, and is published in English in a multi-volume series as The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems.[3]

Al-Masudi - Wikipedia

Looks legitimate.

I could continue but the point is clear. There are well known Muslim commentators who believed Jesus was crucified. The fact that conservative Muslims such as yourself view them as fringe and with disdain is irrelevant to me.

Quran 4:157 is as clear to you as it is to me. We just view it differently.