Muslims and Christians Only: Was Jesus Crucified Or Not?

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

Union said:
I don't think so . The very first query I had still not answered from any Christian. I asked that who witnessed Jesus' crucifixion from his 12 dispels and/or the authors of Gospel as they were the prime sources of the propagation of this incident .

Saint Frank took the attempt to answer me and from my post#55 , he also kept quite as the evidences he tried to show was not listing any of Jesus' 12 disciples .

I hope you may can take over from Saint Frank , and continue .

My argument was those people who preached Jesus' crucifixion didn't witness the incident and hence there is already a big loop hole rationally as the second hand witness can never be a strong proof .

John is one of the 12 Apostles and is traditionally held to be the author of the Gospel of John. He is the one referred to as the disciple that Jesus loved: John the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, do you people know anything about basic Christianity at all? It doesn't appear so!

Desert Snake · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
Seriously, do you people know anything about basic Christianity at all? It doesn't appear so!

Considering that most Christians seem perfectly o.k. with the idea that Christianity was invented by Greeks (Romans)?, and agree with the notion(apparently) that there were no witness accounts at all, are you surprised that anyone would know anything about Christianity? If I didn't have some sort of literature and background, this would not look like a real religion to me either.

Adding to that, New Bibles have even begun replacing the /original name/ word for God because someone thought it offensive or something.

No, you can't really blame non-Christians for scratching their heads and saying 'huh'?

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

disciple said:
Considering that most Christians seem perfectly o.k. with the idea that Christianity was invented by Greeks (Romans)?, and agree with the notion(apparently) that there were no witness accounts at all, are you surprised that anyone would know anything about Christianity? If I didn't have some sort of literature and background, this would not look like a real religion to me either.

Adding to that, New Bibles have even begun replacing the /original name/ word for God because someone thought it offensive or something.

No, you can't really blame non-Christians for scratching their heads and saying 'huh'?

Ignorance about Christianity and religion in general is epidemic. It's still quite shocking to me, though, since it is the world's largest religion. It's shameful. :facepalm:

Desert Snake · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
Ignorance about Christianity and religion in general is epidemic. It's still quite shocking to me, though, since it is the world's largest religion. It's shameful.

I have to say, it makes one pause (well it makes me pause), and examine which lit/group I'm going to support, the problems I think, often stem from Christians themselves, though I can't figure out how anyone is o.k. with 'no witness' idea, that's outrageous imo.

Btw I don't believe that.
But anyways, that's a bit off topic. Well, it's not because I believe there was much witness testimony, I'm not going to argue under a fake position of 'no witnesses even though that makes no sense'.

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

disciple said:
I have to say, it makes one pause (well it makes me pause), and examine which lit/group I'm going to support, the problems I think, often stem from Christians themselves, though I can't figure out how anyone is o.k. with 'no witness' idea, that's outrageous imo.

Btw I don't believe that.
But anyways, that's a bit off topic. Well, it's not because I believe there was much witness testimony, I'm not going to argue under a fake position of 'no witnesses even though that makes no sense'.

I have pointed out that there was witnesses to Christ's crucifixion. The Muslims here are misunderstanding and ignoring what I post. That's their fault.

Desert Snake · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
I have pointed out that there was witnesses to Christ's crucifixion. The Muslims here are misunderstanding and ignoring what I post. That's their fault.

Oh, I see. Well like I said, secular scholarship is pretty much wedded to the idea of no witness account, so everyone is used to that scenario.

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

disciple said:
Oh, I see. Well like I said, secular scholarship is pretty much wedded to the idea of no witness account, so everyone is used to that scenario.

Secular scholarship can't even decide Who Jesus is or what He did. Most of them do accept that He lived and was crucified, though. So on that, we agree. But of course they don't accept the theological aspects of it. That's no surprise.

FearGod · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
I have pointed out that there was witnesses to Christ's crucifixion. The Muslims here are misunderstanding and ignoring what I post. That's their fault.

I explained to you that they witnessed Jesus body,but the soul that tortured wasn't Jesus.

instead of discussing this point then you just claimed the quran to be wrong about virgin Marry because you believe virgin marry wasn't a holy but only Jesus, the father and the holy spirit.

PRAYER TO THE VIRGIN MARY (Never known to fail). Oh, most beautiful flower of Mt. Carmel, fruitful vine... - emerald coast marketplace Classifieds

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

FearGod said:
I explained to you that they witnessed Jesus body,but the soul that tortured wasn't Jesus.

So now you are backtracking and claiming that Jesus' body was crucified, but not His soul, which seems to be something you made up! This is ridiculous.

instead of discussing this point then you just claimed the quran to be wrong about virgin Marry because you believe virgin marry wasn't a holy but only Jesus, the father and the holy spirit.

PRAYER TO THE VIRGIN MARY (Never known to fail). Oh, most beautiful flower of Mt. Carmel, fruitful vine... - emerald coast marketplace Classifieds

Yes, we pray to the Saints (Praying to the Saints | Catholic Answers) as they are our family in Heaven. What's your point? Mary is not God. She is a human being but we honor her for obeying God and bringing Christ into the world, so we honor her as the greatest of all Saints because if it weren't for her going along with the plan of God, there would be no Savior, since He wouldn't have been born. Not even all Catholics have a special devotion to her. Personally, there's other Saints that I'm more drawn towards but I do respect her very much.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity. So your Qur'an is wrong, and now you're very desperate and having to resort to posting lies from stupid anti-Catholic sites. Pitiful.

FearGod · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
So now you are backtracking and claiming that Jesus' body was crucified, but not His soul, which seems to be something you made up! This is ridiculous.

No, i ain't claiming, but it is a fact that God let them to see and believe that Jesus pbuh was died and hence he wasn't God or the son of God, but some invented the story that God died for us and for our sins,that is indeed ridiculous.

saint_frankenstein said:
Yes, we pray to the Saints (Praying to the Saints | Catholic Answers) as they are our family in Heaven. What's your point? Mary is not God. She is a human being but we honor her for obeying God and bringing Christ into the world, so we honor her as the greatest of all Saints because if it weren't for her going along with the plan of God, there would be no Savior, since He wouldn't have been born.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity. So your Qur'an is wrong, and now you're very desperate and having to resort to posting lies from stupid anti-Catholic sites. Pitiful.

The quran mentioned the trinity

They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. (5:73)

And more to it which you don't realize that Christians regard virgin Marry as a holy figure and do worship her.

Muslims worship only God, we don't worship any saint or any prophet.

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

FearGod said:
No, i ain't claiming, but it is a fact that God let them to see and believe that Jesus pbuh was died and hence he wasn't God or the son of God, but some invented the story that God died for us and for our sins,that is indeed ridiculous.

Since when does the Qur'an say that Jesus' body was crucified? You're not making any sense. Get your story straight and stop changing it.

The quran mentioned the trinity

They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. (5:73)

Your "holy" book says that Mary is part of the Trinity and that is flat out wrong!

And more to it which you don't realize that Christians regard virgin Marry as a holy figure and do worship her.

Don't play games with me and try to insult my intelligence. I am a Catholic and I'm well-aware of what the Church teaches on this matter. Mary is holy, yes. Just like all people who do the will of God are holy people. You and I could be holy people.

But we do not worship her! We respect and honor her. Only God is worshiped. Mary is not God.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Veneration of the saints, including Mary, is not worship. Catholics worship God alone.[/FONT]

Do Catholics worship the saints? To worship someone is to acknowledge that the one who is worshiped is divine, is God. Sometimes we can confuse cultural gestures of reverence for gestures of worship. In doing so, we often judge not as God does, by what is in the heart, but rather by appearances (see Jn 8:15, Is 11:3). Catholics hold saints in esteem because they are such wonderful images or mirrors of Christ. Paul several times exhorts his readers to be imitators of him: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1, also Phil 3:17, 1 Cor 4:16).
Mary is the first saint, and holds high honor today, as she did in the early Church. Over the course of history, devotion to Mary has taken many forms, and even has been confused with worship. Church teaching has consistently placed Mary in the company of the saints, however.
Devotion to the saints comes back to the theology of image: Christ is God's image, the saints are Christ's image. We honor them because we desire to imitate them. We pray to them the same as we call upon earthly friends to do a favor for us. This too, is scriptural. In Acts we read of Peter and John going up to the Temple for prayer and encountering a beggar. Peter says to him, "I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, rise and walk" (Acts 3:6). Peter makes it clear that he has the power of Christ in his possession.
To be sure, it is Jesus who heals, but Peter holds the right to extend that power. The same can be said of Paul. In Acts 19:11-12 we read, "So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them." These texts are the basis of the Catholic practice of asking saints to help us, of honoring (not worshiping) the bodies and relics of saints.
catholics and mary worship

Muslims worship only God, we don't worship any saint or any prophet.

Same for Christians. You would know that if you actually bothered to study any other religion outside of what your flawed and lying book has to say. (Yes, I'm getting annoyed.)

FearGod · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
Since when does the Qur'an say that Jesus' body was crucified? You're not making any sense. Get your story straight and stop changing it.

Since the quran says that God raised Jesus to him and that God let them to believe that Jesus was the one who was crucified.

So it is understood that they saw him crucified while he wasn't Jesus the one to be crucified since he was raised to heaven.

Is it that hard to be understood ?

Do you think that God had raised Jesus as body and soul to heaven traveling for billions of lightyears.

saint_frankenstein said:
Your "holy" book says that Mary is part of the Trinity and that is flat out wrong!

Did i invent this

Seymour quotes from Meyrick's "Working of the Church in Spain," the form of doxology admired in that country:

"Glory be to the Father,
Glory be to the Son,
Glory be to the Holy Ghost,
Glory be to the Holy Virgin,
Throughout all ages, forever and ever. Amen."

saint_frankenstein said:
Don't play games with me and try to insult my intelligence. I am a Catholic and I'm well-aware of what the Church teaches on this matter. Mary is holy, yes. Just like all people who do the will of God are holy people. You and I could be holy people.

No, i ain't a holy and i will never be.

saint_frankenstein said:
But we do not worship her! We respect and honor her. Only God is worshiped. Mary is not God.

If you don't worship Marry then some others do,the quran doesn't speak about one specific group.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]

saint_frankenstein said:

Veneration of the saints, including Mary, is not worship. Catholics worship God alone.

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

saint_frankenstein said:
Do Catholics worship the saints? To worship someone is to acknowledge that the one who is worshiped is divine, is God. Sometimes we can confuse cultural gestures of reverence for gestures of worship. In doing so, we often judge not as God does, by what is in the heart, but rather by appearances (see Jn 8:15, Is 11:3). Catholics hold saints in esteem because they are such wonderful images or mirrors of Christ. Paul several times exhorts his readers to be imitators of him: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1, also Phil 3:17, 1 Cor 4:16).
Mary is the first saint, and holds high honor today, as she did in the early Church. Over the course of history, devotion to Mary has taken many forms, and even has been confused with worship. Church teaching has consistently placed Mary in the company of the saints, however.
Devotion to the saints comes back to the theology of image: Christ is God's image, the saints are Christ's image. We honor them because we desire to imitate them. We pray to them the same as we call upon earthly friends to do a favor for us. This too, is scriptural. In Acts we read of Peter and John going up to the Temple for prayer and encountering a beggar. Peter says to him, "I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, rise and walk" (Acts 3:6). Peter makes it clear that he has the power of Christ in his possession.
To be sure, it is Jesus who heals, but Peter holds the right to extend that power. The same can be said of Paul. In Acts 19:11-12 we read, "So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them." These texts are the basis of the Catholic practice of asking saints to help us, of honoring (not worshiping) the bodies and relics of saints.
catholics and mary worship

If you worship only God,then why worshiping his son too ?

saint_frankenstein said:
Same for Christians. You would know that if you actually bothered to study any other religion outside of what your flawed and lying book has to say. (Yes, I'm getting annoyed.)

I studied and found it to be nonsense.

What to study ?

God sent his son through virgin Mary, and the son and father is one but the father is greater than the son.

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 21, 2014

FearGod said:
Since the quran says that God raised Jesus to him and that God let them to believe that Jesus was the one who was crucified.

So it is understood that they saw him crucified while he wasn't Jesus the one to be crucified since he was raised to heaven.

Is it that hard to be understood ?

Yes, it is hard to understand. It's either a language failure or your concept doesn't make a bit of sense. Could go either way.

Do you think that God had raised Jesus as body and soul to heaven traveling for billions of lightyears.

Yes, Christ was raised body and soul to Heaven. Heaven is not in space. :facepalm:

Did i invent this

Seymour quotes from Meyrick's "Working of the Church in Spain," the form of doxology admired in that country:
"Glory be to the Father,
Glory be to the Son,
Glory be to the Holy Ghost,
Glory be to the Holy Virgin,
Throughout all ages, forever and ever. Amen."

Not you, personally, but someone else did. The Glory Be does not include Mary:

Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning,
is now,
and ever shall be,
world without end.
Amen.

http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/glory2.htm

No, i ain't a holy and i will never be.

Far be it from me to say otherwise.

If you don't worship Marry then some others do,the quran doesn't speak about one specific group.

No Christian worships Mary. Period. Case closed.

If you worship only God,then why worshiping his son too ?

Because He is God. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How many times am I going to have to explain this to you?!

I studied and found it to be nonsense.

What to study ?

You didn't study a damn thing. You're extremely ignorant about this subject and relying on flat out lies for your "information". I supply you with real information and you ignore it. I'm about to put you on ignore.

God sent his son through virgin Mary, and the son and father is one but the father is greater than the son.

The Father is not greater than the Son. They are equal, but have different roles.

Union · Jun 21, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
John is one of the 12 Apostles and is traditionally held to be the author of the Gospel of John. He is the one referred to as the disciple that Jesus loved: John the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, do you people know anything about basic Christianity at all? It doesn't appear so!

Seriously , do you people know anything about basic Christianity at all ? It doesn't appear so !

Let me show you from your own scripture that John the apostle is not ' the disciple that Jesus loved '.

01. In this very first point we need to identify two mysterious characters of Gospels who are the other disciple and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved. We have clear proofs from Gospels that these two un-named persons are not different persons but the same person but some times he was addressed as the other disciple and sometimes as the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved. The following verses are the clear proofs in this regard :

John 20:1-3 >>
The first of the Sabbaths Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness still being on it , and she saw the stone taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.

John 21:20 >>
Then Peter, turning around, saw the other disciple whom Jesus loved - the one who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he who betrays You?

In both verses both of the title referred to the same disciple of Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) . Furthermore there are so many scenes where we can find the other disciple or the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved appeared but not a single scene had been found where both of the characters appeared simultaneously or together. Hence here the point is the other disciple and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved is the same person . Now let us concentrate our attention to the couple of verses from the last chapter of John . These verses are :

1 After these things Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. And he revealed himself this way: 2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called the Twin, and Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, I am going out to fish. They said to him, We will go with you also. They went out and entered into a boat immediately. And that night they caught nothing.4 But when the morning had come, Jesus stood on the shore. But the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.5 Then Jesus said to them, Children, do you have anything to eat? They answered Him, No.6 And He said to them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find. Therefore they cast, and now they no longer had the strength to draw, from the multitude of fish.7 Then that disciple whom Jesus loves said to Peter, It is the Lord! Then hearing that it is the Lord, Simon Peter girded on his coat (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea.8 And the other disciples came in a little boat (for they were not far from land, only about two hundred cubits), dragging the net of fish. John (21:1-8)

In that event at the Sea of Tiberias few disciples were appeared. They are:

1. Simon Peter 2.Thomas 3. Nathanae , 4+5. The sons of Zebedee which means James and John and finally 6+7 two others of the disciples .

As we have seen before in the Gospels the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved and the other disciple are the same person so there is no doubt that this mysterious disciple and the apostle John were together in the above event of Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) appearance in Tiberias.Then how it could be possible that John the son of Zebedee and that disciple would be the same person? More over in the above incident it was reported that the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved was the one who identified Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) . This also clears the fact that the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved was one of the other disciples (6+7) and was with the apostle John and there remained no scope to claim that the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved or the other disciple and the apostle John are the same person.

02. Lets read from John 21:24 >>
This is the disciple (the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved) who testifies of these things and wrote these things. And we know that his testimony is true.

Very strange to notice here that who is that we. Is it not that unknown we who collected ,compiled and wrote down this Gospel . More surprise is hidden in the verse of John 19:35 >>

And he who saw bore record, and his record is true. And he knows that he speaks true, so that you might believe.

The unreciprocated question is who is that he? If the eye-witness had written this Gospel then we could have found a strong I instead of that weak and puzzling he. This paradox thrusts us to have an extreme problem for admitting the fact of John and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved to be the same person . It is obvious from this point that the writer of this Gospel whose name is John had collected materials from the disciple who witnessed the life span of Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) and was present in the time of his crucifixion . This dilemma is also a proof against the fact of them (John and (the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved ) to be the same person .

03. John 21:24 is telling us that the apostle whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved had written down these things by his own hand but Acts 4:13 is telling us that the apostle John was un-educated or illiterate who did not know how to read or write. If you read the Gospel of John you can find in the Gospel a high literature value rich with Greek philosophy which was written in Greek language . Now is it possible for an ordinary illiterate man like John , the son of Zebedee to write such a Gospel like this ? He was a normal fisherman who brought up in Galilee (Mathew 4:21-22,Mark 1:16-20,Luke 5:1-11) whose mother tongue was Aramaic and he could never learn Greek because he was illiterate or un educated (Acts 4:13) . So the apostle whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loves is a different person than the apostle John , the son of Zebedee.

Cont...

Union · Jun 21, 2014

04. John 19:25-27 described the eyewitnesses of Jesus(Peace Be Upon him) crucifixion :

And his mother stood by the cross of Jesus, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Then when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom He loved standing by, he said to his mother, Woman, behold your son!......

But to get a clear picture of this event we need to concentrate to three synoptic Gospels . Lets see what they are telling in this respect :

Matthew 27: 55-56 >>
Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40-41 >>
And also women were watching from a distance, among whom also was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses, and Salome,
41 (who also, when He was in Galilee, followed Him and ministered to Him), and many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

Luke 23:48-49 >>
And all the crowd arriving together at this sight, beholding the things happening, struck their breasts and returned.

And all those known to Him stood at a distance; and the women, those accompanying Him from Galilee, were seeing these things.

What we are observing here is none of the three synoptic Gospels mentioned the presence of blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (May Peace Be upon them) and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved during the period of his crucifixion . How it is possible for all those three authors to overlook such significant characters like Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (May Peace Be upon them) and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved in their Gospels where John alone mentioned them in his Gospel . This inconsistency between the three synoptic Gospels and Gospel of John leads us to believe that blessed mother of Jesus (peace be upon her) and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved were not present at all in the moment of his crucifixion and this belief suppose to be three times stronger and logical than the fact of their presence .

I feel worthy again to mention another important evidence here . Mark 14:50 and Mathew 26:56 reported us that all of his disciples left him and ran away. In the both reports the word all is used which obviously included the apostle John , the son of Zebedee. None of his twelve disciples were with him from the time of their flee till the time Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) resurrected and by himself he went to meet with them (Matthew 28 :16-20,Mark 16:12-14, Luke 24:13-40 and John 20:19) . Moreover this fact was really important for Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) to fulfill the prophecy . Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) himself told so :

Mark 14:27-28 >>
And Jesus said to them, All of you will run away and leave me (tonight), For it is written, "I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."But after I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee.

Now if the disciple whom he loved is John with whom Jesus (pbuh) talked to take care of his mother then the above prophesy didn't fulfill at all . This prophesy fulfill if and only if the disciple whom he loved is not any one among of his twelve disciples whom he choose for his mission .

05. Lastly I like to mention you the incident of the empty tomb in John , chapter 20 . Observe carefully :

1 The first of the sabbaths Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness still being on it , and she saw the stone taken away from the tomb.
2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.
3 Therefore Peter and that other disciple went forth and came to the tomb.
4 So they both ran together. And the other disciple outran Peter and came first to the tomb.
5 And stooping down he saw the linens lying, yet he did not go in.
6 Then Simon Peter came following him and went into the tomb. And he saw the linens lying there .
7 And the grave-cloth that was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
8 Therefore, then, that other disciple also went in, the one who came first to the tomb. And he saw and believed.
9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture that He must rise again from the dead.
10 Then the disciples went away again to themselves.
11 But Mary stood outside of the tomb, weeping. And as she wept, she stooped down into the tomb.

In the above descriptions we are told that the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved didn't know the scripture that Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) must rise from death after three days . But Luke 09, Matthew 16 and Mark 08 report us that Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) explained the phenomenon of his rise from death to all of his twelve disciples (which must include John) vastly, plainly and emphatically. Then how John 20:09 can be resolved ? There is only one answer to resolve this question and that is the disciple John and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loves are not the same person .

With my scanty time I have found the above mentioned five points to establish that John and the disciple whom Jesus (Peace Be Upon him) loved are not the same person. May be a deep and subtle observation on the Gospels can add more evidences in my support.

ZooGirl02 · Jun 24, 2014

In my opinion, the Quran is just flat out wrong when it says Jesus was not crucified. This is backed up by the non-Christian people such as Josephus who said He was indeed crucified. This is also backed up by the fact that the majority of scholars, including non-Christian ones, agree that He was crucified.

Union · Jun 24, 2014

ZooGirl02 said:
In my opinion, the Quran is just flat out wrong when it says Jesus was not crucified. This is backed up by the non-Christian people such as Josephus who said He was indeed crucified. This is also backed up by the fact that the majority of scholars, including non-Christian ones, agree that He was crucified.

We have already discussed that from NT narrators and from Jesus' 12 disciples nobody witnessed his crucifixion directly . Hence NT narrations regarding this incident became weak and feeble . Now Josephus and others collected the ingredient from the NT , hence even carry less weight .

Talking about the work of Josephus , as it is famous among all , is deemed a fabrication and unauthentic by even the Christian scholars . Here some info for your perusal :

The Testimonium has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.[108] Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[109] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.[110][111]

The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the Testimonium fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus' work; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.[112] Some of the external arguments are "arguments from silence" that question the authenticity of the entire passage not for what it says, but due to lack of references to it among other ancient sources.[113]

The external analyses of the Testimonium have even used computer-based methods, e.g. the matching of the text of the Testimonium with the Gospel of Luke performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.[114] Goldberg found some partial matches between the Testimonium and Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, but the results were not conclusive.[114] Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities, one that the matches were random, or that the Testimonium was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, and finally that both the Testimonium and Luke were based on the same sources.[114]

Internal arguments[edit]

An 1879 copy of the Antiquities
One of the key internal arguments against the total authenticity of the Testimonium is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations.[115] For instance, the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation.[115] Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original Testimonium, but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.[116]

Andreas Köstenberger states that the fact that the 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium (discovered in the 1970s) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek Testimonium has been subject to interpolation.[65]

Another example of the textual arguments against the Testimonium is that it uses the Greek term poietes to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works") but elsewhere in his works, Josephus only uses the term poietes to mean "poet," whereas this use of "poietes" seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius.[117]

The concordance of the language used in the Testimonium, its flow within the text and its length have formed components of the internal arguments against its authenticity, e.g. that the brief and compact character of the Testimonium stands in marked contrast to Josephus' more extensive accounts presented elsewhere in his works.[118] For example, Josephus' description of the death of John the Baptist includes consideration of his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, his influence, the circumstances of his death, and the belief that the destruction of Herod's army was a divine punishment for Herod's slaughter of John.[119] G. A. Wells has argued against the authenticity of the Testimonium, stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the Antiquities, and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.[118]

A further internal argument against the Testimonium's authenticity is the context of the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews.[120] Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the Antiquities and breaks the thread of the narrative.[118]

External arguments[edit]

Eusebius
Origen's statement in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) that Josephus" did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.[80][121] This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was Christ" in the Testimonium must be a Christian interpolation.[5] Based on this observation alone, Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[5] Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.[5][122]

A different set of external arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium (either partial or total) are "arguments from silence", e.g. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in 324 AD, none mentions the Testimonium.[123][124] Given earlier debates by Christian authors about the existence of Jesus, e.g. in Justin Martyr's 2nd century Dialogue with Trypho, it would have been expected that the passage from Josephus would have been used as a component of the arguments.[125]

Even after Eusebius' 324 AD reference, it is not until Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (c. 392 AD) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the Testimonium's reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening patristic authors.[123][124] Scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.[126]

A separate argument from silence against the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium is that a 5th or 6th century table of contents of Josephus (although selective) makes no mention of it.[124]

A final argument from silence relates to Josephus' own writings and questions the authenticity of Testimonium based on the fact that it has no parallel in the Jewish War, which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.[127][25]

In The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus, Arthur Drews stated that "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus."[128]

Timing of the interpolations[edit]
Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the Testimonium and Eusebius' writings in the Demonstrations of the Gospels.[62]

Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believes that the Testimonium was subject to interpolation before Eusebius.[116] Baras believes that Origen had seen the original Testimonium but that the Testimonium seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it.[116] Baras states that the interpolation in the Testimonium took place between Origen and Eusebius.[116]

Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the Testimonium must have come early, before Eusebius.[5] Richard Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.[80]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Union · Jun 24, 2014

Some interesting documentaries related with issue in hand . Hopefully the posters of this thread will enjoy these .

01. BBC FOUR DOCUMENTARY FILM DID JESUS DIE , DIRECTED BY RICHARD DENTON .
02. HISTORY CHANNEL DOCUMENTARY FILM FOOD FOR THOUGH : TOMB OF JESUS .
03. NICHOLAS NOTOVITCH'S THE UNKNOWN LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST ,1984
04. "JESUS LIVED IN INDIA" BY HOLGER KERSTEN IN 1986-7 (ELEMENT BOOKS)
05. JESUS OF THE EAST BY SIMON PRICE (THE FORTEAN TIMES - ISSUE 183 - MARCH 2004)
06. DR. JAMES DEARDORFFS RESEARCHES AT : The Talmud of Jmmanuel document, upon which the Gospel of Matthew is based
07. KERSEY GRAVES ' 1875 CLASSIC THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS: CHRISTIANITY BEFORE CHRIST
08. EDWARD T. MARTINS "KING OF TRAVELERS, JESUS'
09. SUZANNE OLSSONS DEEP RESEARCH IN THIS FIELD FOUND AT Jesus Kashmir Tomb
10. IF JESUS DID NOT DIE UPON THE CROSS? A STUDY IN EVIDENCE - JUDGE E.B. DOCKER, LONDON, 1920
11. DUG JESUS PA KORSET? (DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS?) DR. HUGO TOLL, SWEDEN, 1928
12. JESUS IN ROME - ROBERT GRAVES AND JOSHUA PODRO, LONDON, 1957
13. JESUS DIED IN KASHMIR - ANDREAS FABER-KAISER, PUBLISHED IN LONDON, 1977
14. LOST CITIES OF CHINA, CENTRAL ASIA AND INDIA - DAVID CHILDRESS, ILLINOIS, USA 1985
15. JESUS AND MOSES ARE BURIED IN INDIA - GENE MATLOCK, USA, 1991
16. JESUS IN INDIA - JAMES DEARDORFF, SAN FRANCISCO, 1994
17. IN SEARCH OF THE LOVING GOD - MARK MASON, OREGON, USA 1997
18. THE CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY - JOSEPH MACCHIO, USA, 1999
19. JESUS DID NOT PERISH ON THE CROSS (JESUS NICHT AM KREUZ GESTORBEN) - KURT BERNA. ZURICH, SWITZERLAND, 1975.
20. TESTIMONY OF THE SHROUD - RODNEY HOARE, NEW YORK, USA, 1979
21. 1887 DISCOVERY BY NICOLAS NOTOVICH

loverOfTruth · Jun 24, 2014

ZooGirl02 said:
Hello everyone. I want to have a debate between Muslims and Christians only. I do not want anyone else to participate in the debate.

So, the question is this: Was Jesus crucified or not? As for me, I strongly believe that He was indeed crucified but the Quran states that He was not crucified. Here is the evidence for believing that He was indeed crucified:

In addition to the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus we also have the testimony of Josephus, a Jewish historian; Tacitus, a Roman historian; and a possible reference to His crucifixion in the Babylonian Talmud. There is also a letter from a person named Mara Bar-Serapion which mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. You can see more about these evidences at Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

So, Muslims, why do you believe that Jesus was not crucified? Please provide rebuttals.

Translational changes regarding crucifixion event

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : [youtube]phvGGeoPOPg[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

So, now let me summarize my response... We believe that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified, first and foremost, because the Qur'an (which is the unaltered verbatim word of God) says so and secondly, because even the Christian scriptures have many inconsistent and contradictory accounts of the event which makes it less believable.

Peace.

loverOfTruth · Jun 24, 2014

Also, even other early Christian writings agree with the Qur'an :

Please read the Apocalypse of Peter which was directly written and spoken by Peter himself :
"For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst."
...
And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

Taken From : The Wesley Center Online: The Apocalypse Of Peter

Now read again what the Qur'an says about that : "...but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man" (Al Quran 4:157). How amazing !!!

Note that "In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century. The terminus a quo can be more precisely determined through the time of origin of 4 Est. (about 100 A.D.), which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter (cf. 4 Est. with c. 3), and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. We thus come, with H. Weinel, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin."

From : Apocalypse of Peter (Akhmim)

Finally, looking at the variety of accounts/contradictions that exist within the Bible as well as among Christian sources regarding 'crucifixion related events' ranging from when exactly Jesus was crucified, to how he was crucified, and even what transpired after crucifixion, it is hard to come up with one clear and consistent picture of what happened. So my point is if there can be so much divergent opinions on those issues among Christians and more so among early Christians as shown in that video, how can you be really sure that the story of Crucifixion as stated in the Bible is really what it says it is. You simply can't.

Muslims and Christians Only: Was Jesus Crucified Or Not?

Gone

Veteran Member

Gone

Veteran Member

Gone

Veteran Member

Gone

Freedom Of Mind

Gone

Freedom Of Mind

Gone

Freedom Of Mind

Gone

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member