Was Jesus killed on the cross?

[fallingblood]

As you know, but are ashamed to admit, Muslims are told that they have only one Koranic verse which directly addresses Jesus' crucifixion. Thus...they have no other choice but to derive Jesus' crucifixion theology from this one, single, solitary verse.

If muslims can twist this one verse into a negative, then they do not have to deal with His singular resurrection which follows in the very next verse.

Your line of reasoning simply isn't working. The Quran does not state that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. It does not suggest Jesus is God. Those are Christian beliefs.

You are trying to impose your Christian beliefs onto the Quran and Islam. It is nothing more than arrogance.

 

[Bowman]

You can't ignore the other verses about the death of Jesus.

Which one of your 'other' slavishly googled verses mentions anything at all regarding a crucifixion event?

Actually, since the general consensus agrees with me, I do not have the burden of proof. It is upon you to show that Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens sapiens. Now any evolutionary biology text book will agree with what I said.

And yet...you are unable to google a link as your reply.

This never stopped you before, brother...

Never said they were intended to be summed up.

And yet, you summed them up, anyway...go figure...

Also, if they have those gaps, then you are admitting the Bible is flawed. However, the Bible is pretty good about giving us a timeline.

Geneologies were used to serve the purpose of of the context.

Genesis 7:4, clearly states that the flood would wipe the face of the Earth of every living creature.

Geneis 7:19 clearly states that the flood waters covered all of the highest mountains beneath the heavens.

Genesis 7:23, again clearly states that every living creature on the entire earth was killed.

Just like your Arabic, your Hebrew is also completely, and utterly non-existent, brother.

Why not show the Hebrew and the context...or would this be too much effort and possibly destroy your argument?

Indeed...it would...

That's not to mention that the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights, which would be much more than just a local flood, which is proven by the fact that the mountains of Ararat were also supposedly completely covered, which makes it again, more than a local flood.

The Bible is clear evidence that they are talking about a global flood.

You already said it yourself, there simply is not enough water on planet earth to cover itself in a flood. 40 days and 40 nights of rain is not enough to cover the earth, brother.

You have now placed yourself in the precarious situation of defending a global flood which neither of us believes in....nice work!

If you can't show where the Quran states that it is copied from the Bible, than you are wrong.

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم​

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

And The Book, the clear. Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend. And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom. (43.2 – 4)

 

[Bowman]

Your line of reasoning simply isn't working. The Quran does not state that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

It does in the Arabic.

Of course, you don't know any Arabic.

It does not suggest Jesus is God. Those are Christian beliefs.

It does in the Arabic.

Of course, you don't know any Arabic.

You are trying to impose your Christian beliefs onto the Quran and Islam. It is nothing more than arrogance.

Who are you to refute anything at all, brother...?

Why not reply with yet another googled weblink...?

 

[fallingblood]

I'm done with you. You are the exact reason why people hate Christians, it's that arrogance that your beliefs are somehow better than all other ones. You have not refuted anything I've said, and all you've actually done is act in a childish manner, and dodged everything I posted.

It's completely pointless now to go on with this as all you do is offer insults and nothing else.

 

[Bowman]

I'm done with you. You are the exact reason why people hate Christians, it's that arrogance that your beliefs are somehow better than all other ones. You have not refuted anything I've said, and all you've actually done is act in a childish manner, and dodged everything I posted.

It's completely pointless now to go on with this as all you do is offer insults and nothing else.

Come back later when you learn to debate properly...

 

[Oberon]

Of course, you don't know any Arabic.

I do know a bit of arabic. I am far more familiar with hebrew, latin, greek, french, and german. Of course, knowing every lanuage under the sun wouldn't make you any more accurate.

 

[Bowman]

I do know a bit of arabic. I am far more familiar with hebrew, latin, greek, french, and german. Of course, knowing every lanuage under the sun wouldn't make you any more accurate.

Why don't you fill-in for your bother who decided to watch from the sidelines...

 

[Oberon]

Why don't you fill-in for your bother who decided to watch from the sidelines...

No problem. You quote the arabic which demonstrates you are correct, and we will proceed.

 

[Bowman]

no problem. You quote the arabic which demonstrates you are correct, and we will proceed.

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول


الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن


الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم


إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا​

 

[Oberon]

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول​

الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن​

الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم​

إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا​

Anybody can copy and paste. But can you demonstrate an understanding of the syntactical and lexical components of what you quoted? Let me give you an exampe:

Και ο ᾿Ιησους ανεχώρησε μετα των μαθητων αυτου προς την θάλασσαν
and.conj. nom.article. Jesus.nom.sing. withdrew.3rd person aorist with.prep. the disciples.gen.pl. of him.gen.sing. to.prep. the sea.acc.sing.

In other words, arabic, although a daughter of PIE, has a unique syntax and may be grammatically analyzed accordingly. Can you demonstrate an understanding of the various tenses, conjugations, aspects, inflections, etc, of arabic lexemes? Or are you simply copying and pasting? I'm not that great with arabic, but I do have the necessary reference grammars and an ability to read the language to check your understanding.

 

[Bowman]

Anybody can copy and paste. But can you demonstrate an understanding of the syntactical and lexical components of what you quoted? Let me give you an exampe:

Και ο ᾿Ιησους ανεχώρησε μετα των μαθητων αυτου προς την θάλασσαν
and.conj. nom.article. Jesus.nom.sing. withdrew.3rd person aorist with.prep. the disciples.gen.pl. of him.gen.sing. to.prep. the sea.acc.sing.

In other words, arabic, although a daughter of PIE, has a unique syntax and may be grammatically analyzed accordingly. Can you demonstrate an understanding of the various tenses, conjugations, aspects, inflections, etc, of arabic lexemes? Or are you simply copying and pasting? I'm not that great with arabic, but I do have the necessary reference grammars and an ability to read the language to check your understanding.

Stop stalling and start rendering, brother...

 

[Oberon]

Stop stalling and start rendering, brother...

I'm not stalling. The Quran has been translated many times over. I don't believe that my knowledge of arabic could offer a superior rendering. You, on the other hand, do. I am in a position to evaluate whether you can understand the classical arabic you quote, or whether you are just copying and pasting. So demonstrate you actually understand the grammatical and syntactical components of the arabic your quote (by demonstrating a knowledge of the grammar of classical arabic with respect to the lines in question), or just admit you don't understand the language at all.

 

[Bowman]

I'm not stalling. The Quran has been translated many times over. I don't believe that my knowledge of arabic could offer a superior rendering. You, on the other hand, do. I am in a position to evaluate whether you can understand the classical arabic you quote, or whether you are just copying and pasting. So demonstrate you actually understand the grammatical and syntactical components of the arabic your quote (by demonstrating a knowledge of the grammar of classical arabic with respect to the lines in question), or just admit you don't understand the language at all.

Do you even know what the Arabic says, brother...?

 

[Oberon]

Do you even know what the Arabic says, brother...?

I could work through it (Sura 4:157). My arabic is elementary. I have to sit there and translate with my lexicon. But how good my arabic is isn't the issue, so I have no need to do that work. I'm not the one claiming something is lost in the translation. Were I making such a claim, as you are, I would back it up by an analysis of the original language (and in fact I have done this, for example with respect to Galatians here).

The question is, do you know what the arabic says, and (even more important) can you demonstrate through grammatical/syntactical/lexical analysis that the lines say what you say they do?

 

[Bowman]

I could work through it (Sura 4:157). My arabic is elementary. I have to sit there and translate with my lexicon. But how good my arabic is isn't the issue, so I have no need to do that work. I'm not the one claiming something is lost in the translation. Were I making such a claim, as you are, I would back it up by an analysis of the original language (and in fact I have done this, for example with respect to Galatians here).

The question is, do you know what the arabic says, and (even more important) can you demonstrate through grammatical/syntactical/lexical analysis that the lines say what you say they do?

Of course, brother...

Turn back a few pages to post #232...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2074363-post232.html

 

[Oberon]

Wow, you have been peddling this bunk all over the place, haven't you? And you seem to have been banned for it. You don't seem to know arabic though. Even your own sources disagree with you.

Here is the classic Arabic definition for "ma"...

It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

As witnessed by the plethora of positives in this ayah, the conditional mood is only positive.

Yet "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" pg. 346 (d) on "Conditional and Hypothetical Sentences" clearly states that ma is used as a negative particle in conditionals.

Thus, context is clear that in 4.157 “wama” is simply governing the verb in the conditional mood – which is positive….NOT negative.

Simply stating this doesn't make it true. As your reference grammar states, this very particle is used in negation, see also section 158 on negation and this very particle.

And none of this supports your claim that the original arabic claims that Jesus is God.

 

[Bowman]

Wow, you have been peddling this bunk all over the place, haven't you? And you seem to have been banned for it. You don't seem to know arabic though. Even your own sources disagree with you.

Ain't google great...?

We will see just how much Arabic you know, brother...perhaps you can be the first to refute my exegesis...then again, its not very likely...

Yet "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" pg. 346 (d) on "Conditional and Hypothetical Sentences" clearly states that ma is used as a negative particle in conditionals.
Simply stating this doesn't make it true. As your reference grammar states, this very particle is used in negation, see also section 158 on negation and this very particle.

"Ma" has numerous possibilities brother...that is why I posted them all..when it comes down to it, its usage is determined by the context...

You are not off to a very good start.

And none of this supports your claim that the original arabic claims that Jesus is God.

The fact that the Koran proclaims Jesus Christ as God is a separate claim, brother.

Right now, your job is to refute my assertion that the Koran proclaims that Jesus Christ was crucified until death upon the cross.

Good luck...

 

[Oberon]

"Ma" has numerous possibilities brother...that is why I posted them all..when it comes down to it, its usage is determined by the context...

You provide nothing in your analysis which gives any indication that all the translators are wrong and the particle here should not be considered a marker of negation. More importantly, you explicitly state that

Thus, context is clear that in 4.157 “wama” is simply governing the verb in the conditional mood

Yet your reference grammar consistently refers to ma as a negative particle when in governs the verb, and does not mention any verbal goverment constructions consistent with your usage of ma.

Moreover, what context? All you do is highlight ma over and over again, and then refer to a "plethora of positives" without explaining why ma here should be considered positive, disregarding all other readings by grammarians.

 

[Bowman]

You provide nothing in your analysis which gives any indication that all the translators are wrong and the particle here should not be considered a marker of negation.

All the Koranic ‘crucifixion’ instances are shown here, of which, they all confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…


• 5.33…they will be crucified till death
• 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death
• 12.41…so will be crucified till death
• 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death
• 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death


Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.

Thus, there is no reason at all to believe that 4.157 would break this trend…

More importantly, you explicitly state that

Yet your reference grammar consistently refers to ma as a negative particle when in governs the verb, and does not mention any verbal goverment constructions consistent with your usage of ma.

Consider the following ayah, by the translator Yusuf Ali, which follows the same positive mood as in 4.157, but, in being consistent with the rendering bias that has been poured forth into 4.157 by Islam, we will change each of the four “wama” locations to mean a negative, as thus….

قولوا ءامنا بالله وما أنزل إلينا وما أنزل إلى


إبرهم وإسمعيل وإسحق ويعقوب والأسباط وما


أوتي موسى وعيسى وما أوتي النبيون من ربهم


لا نفرق بين أحد منهم ونحن له مسلمون​

Qooloo amanna biAllahi wama onzila ilayna wama onzila ila ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa wama ootiya alnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona

Yusuf Ali Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and not the revelation given to us, and not to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and not that given to Moses and Jesus, and not that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).' 2.136



Cleary, this makes a complete mess of things when the same logic is applied to other ayahs in the Koran.

Moreover, what context? All you do is highlight ma over and over again, and then refer to a "plethora of positives" without explaining why ma here should be considered positive, disregarding all other readings by grammarians.

That Jesus died on the cross is confirmed in the very next ayah, brother…

بل رفعه الله إليه وكان الله عزيزا حكيما

Bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman

4.158 But “allah”, he raised Him to him, and “allah” was mighty, wise.


Observing the key term…

رفع= “rafaAAa”

“rafaAAa” definition:

Perfect tense, 3rd person masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift up, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

رفعه= “rafaAAa” + “hu” = “rafaAAahu” = he raised Him


References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume three, pp. 1121 - 1124
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 217 - 218
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 59
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 83


Occurrences of “rafaAAahu” in the Koran: 1
Location: 4.158


The term “bal” is used as an affirmation, and emends the fact that Jesus was crucified, as told to us in 4.157, and tells us that even though He was killed upon the Cross, He was singularly , and corporeally raised up “rafaAAahu”.

 

[Oberon]

All the Koranic ‘crucifixion’ instances are shown here, of which, they all confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…


• 5.33…they will be crucified till death
• 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death
• 12.41…so will be crucified till death
• 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death
• 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death


Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.

Thus, there is no reason at all to believe that 4.157 would break this trend…

It isn't broken. 4.157 says he wasn't crucified. Additionally, 4.156 makes no sense without a negative in 4.157.

we will change each of the four “wama” locations to mean a negative

Except ma is also used, in governing the verb, as a relative. And so it is with this passage. Only, as you point out, context is important, and the relative use makes no sense in 4.157.

Cleary, this makes a complete mess of things when the same logic is applied to other ayahs in the Koran.

It's only "clear" when you disregard the grammar.

That Jesus died on the cross is confirmed in the very next ayah, brother…

Not even according to your source"

Perfect tense, 3rd person masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift up, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

It can easily mean "honor, show regard, raise in dignity,etc." There is nothing in the definition which "confirms" that Jesus was literally raised from the dead according to the line.