• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Really Crucified

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Jesus cousin John was not alone in Jesus baptism, God was also present. and made his approval known.

Why this had to be so is not stated, however Jesus set himself as an example many times. And following his Baptism, Baptism became a Christian sacrament when the Holy Spirit enters us.

Prior to Jesus Baptism, it was a Jewish ceremony that was not universal.
Jesus was a Jew. John was a Jew. There is no suggestion that John was creating any new idea about the Baptism. We have to look at this from a Jewish perspective, as both John and Jesus were Jews. Christianity didn't form for quite some time after the fact. And the modern idea of Baptism didn't form until even after that.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
So the Jews believe.

However it does not stop them reinterpreting it. so they must believe that there is room for manoeuvre when it comes to making it fit with changes in civilisation.
It seems God gave more an outline than a final draft.
I'm pretty sure the Bible states as much as well. And Jesus, being a Jew, who never abolished the law, would have seen it the same way.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Yeah and somebody needs to tell Zakir that the Quran doesn't say Jesus wasn't crucified either. It says in Surah VI The Table Spread that Allah made Jesus taste death and then raised him to himself.
I think he actually knows that it is more complicated than that. It is not as simple as you try to make it, which is why there is such a debate. Plus, we have to look at tradition here as well.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Sure...I believe I can. Jesus was both human and divine. Human side from Mary...divine side from the Holy Spirit. When He came to earth as a baby, He emptied Himself of all divine power and knowledge (that's why He had to grow in body and mind). As I'd said before, He didn't have the human DNA tendency to sin...that comes from the father...not mother.
That is an assumption. Can you show any reason why we should believe that DNA has anything to do with sin in the first place? Nothing more than an assumption.
When Jesus was baptized...the trinity was now working together again...before they weren't. Now Jesus could baptize with the Spirit. Now...from this time on...He began to perform His miracles. Now...He had full knowledge of who He was and what His ministry was from this point on.
Jesus struggles with the idea of being the Messiah. There is no suggestion that he was all of a sudden aware of who he was. That again is an assumption.

More so, you are interjecting your own personal ideas on to the story of Jesus. There is no suggestion that when Jesus was baptized, the trinity started working together. The Gospels never mention anything about the Trinity at all.
But...I guess you do not believe and throw Hebrews 4:15 out the window...since it says He was tempted as we are but was "without sin". And...Jesus was also by actions with his earthly family showing that He was not constrained by His human family and His ultimately loyalties were not to His earthly parents...but, to God....
Hebrews has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It is so far distant that it can only tell us what Christians during that time believed.

You are basing your ideas on assumptions which are based on your own personal biases. That is alright, you have the right to believe whatever you want. But it is on faith that you believe.
 

Green Kepi

Active Member
That is an assumption. Can you show any reason why we should believe that DNA has anything to do with sin in the first place? Nothing more than an assumption.
Jesus struggles with the idea of being the Messiah. There is no suggestion that he was all of a sudden aware of who he was. That again is an assumption.

More so, you are interjecting your own personal ideas on to the story of Jesus. There is no suggestion that when Jesus was baptized, the trinity started working together. The Gospels never mention anything about the Trinity at all.
Hebrews has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It is so far distant that it can only tell us what Christians during that time believed.

You are basing your ideas on assumptions which are based on your own personal biases. That is alright, you have the right to believe whatever you want. But it is on faith that you believe.

Everything you just stated is also based on assumptions and personal beliefs...oh, well...hang in there...but, please keep seeking the truth and someday...who knows...we 'both' may stumble upon it....
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Jesus was a Jew. John was a Jew. There is no suggestion that John was creating any new idea about the Baptism. We have to look at this from a Jewish perspective, as both John and Jesus were Jews. Christianity didn't form for quite some time after the fact. And the modern idea of Baptism didn't form until even after that.

It was not usual for God to attend Jewish baptisms. Jesus seems to have been unique in this.
Those that follow Jesus are Christian not Jews. The Jews do not recognise him either as their saviour or Messiah.

The Christian baptism is a sacrament based on Jesus own baptism.
There is absolutely no need for Christians to follow or look at their faith based on a Jewish perspective.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
It was not usual for God to attend Jewish baptisms. Jesus seems to have been unique in this.
Those that follow Jesus are Christian not Jews. The Jews do not recognise him either as their saviour or Messiah.

The Christian baptism is a sacrament based on Jesus own baptism.
There is absolutely no need for Christians to follow or look at their faith based on a Jewish perspective.
Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews. His first followers were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Judaism plays a very big part here.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews. His first followers were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Judaism plays a very big part here.



So......?

Christians are not Jews.

Jesus was indeed a Jew but he was also the Son of God.

Those Jews that chose to follow Jesus after the resurrection, under the leadership James in Jerusalem became a minor Jewish sect, and largely died out, as it was neither fish nor fowl.

The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus.

Those churches set up by Paul amongst the gentiles prospered, and eventually became the Christian Churches we know today.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
So......?

Christians are not Jews.

Jesus was indeed a Jew but he was also the Son of God.

Those Jews that chose to follow Jesus after the resurrection, under the leadership James in Jerusalem became a minor Jewish sect, and largely died out, as it was neither fish nor fowl.

The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus.

Those churches set up by Paul amongst the gentiles prospered, and eventually became the Christian Churches we know today.
We were discussing the idea of baptism. The baptism of Jesus must be seen under Jewish thought. The reason being that Jesus was a Jew. John was a Jew. They were both practicing Judaism. The baptism that Jesus underwent was a Jewish baptism. You can't take out the Judaism aspect out of the story of Jesus. It plays a very important part.

As for the Son of God, that can be translated to various ideas. If we talk about a literal son of God, that changes nothing anyway. There were various people who were considered the son of a god. It makes no difference here. Jesus still practiced Judaism, he was a Jew, he was under Jewish thought. He preached Judaism. His followers were Jewish. His apostles were Jewish. Again, Judaism plays a huge role here.

As for Paul, he was still a Jew. His understanding of things was very different than what the Church preaches today. However, Judaism still ran through it. The fact that it broke away later (actually all of the Gospel writers except Luke were Jews), means absolutely nothing here. Especially since it broke away after the disciples and first apostles of Jesus died off. More so though, Paul was not teaching the same message as Jesus. They may be similar in many ways, but it was not the same message.
 

ahanu

New Member
Here's some of the most controversial scriptures in the Koran:

Surah 4:155-158 (trans. Yusuf Ali): “(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs .........of Allah; that they ...slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)’;- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. . .”

Most people read it as saying, "the Koran states that Jesus was not crucified."

Indeed, when interpreting this verse, the masses of Christians and Muslims err.

My points are as follows:

(1) They overlook the fact that Muhammad isn't speaking to Christians, and that Muhammad is simply addressing a particular group of Jewish tribes. This is a fact. Unfortunately, I can't post links at the moment (I have to make 15 posts or more), but here's how one of my sources reads: "The Qur’an confirmed first century Jewish manuscripts in which some Jews falsely 'boasted' and claimed credit for Jesus’ death. For example, Medinan Jews and their predecessors 'were under an illusion when they took credit for and boasted of this accomplishment.'" The Romans crucified Jesus; however, Muhammad stresses an important point . . .

(2) God killed the Christ. This is why the Koran reads: "they [the Jews] killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [the Jews] . . ." Interpret 4.127 through the lens of 8.17, which says: "Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower." This verse was written after the battle of badr. Maybe I should start a silly controversy around it, saying, "Muhammad's army didn't even lift a finger; God slew them all!It was a miracle!" LMAO! Obviously the language in 4.127 and 8.17 are similar. Let us keep this in mind, for . . .

(3) When speaking with "the Jews," Jesus said: "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:17-19). Also, read John 19:11, which is where you can find Jesus saying this to Pilate: "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." This emphasis on God having power over the life, death, and resurretion of the Christ is what Muhammad is magnifying when he said: "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them." Nay, God slew Jesus, and "those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not . . ." The substitution theory and the swoon theory just really, really, really don't make sense.

(4) Even orthodox Muslims can't even agree on 4. 127. Many of them have supported the "substitution" theory in the past, and the swoon theory is becoming the new craze among mainstream Muslim interpretation, but this is BS. Other Muslims have also supported my theory here, and it makes the most sense. For example, al-Hallaj and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.

Conclusion: mainstream Muslim and Christian interpretation of 4.127 is wrong. Muhammad believed this: the Messiah was crucified and died on the cross at the hand of God. Many Jewish religious leaders during the time would find this hard to believe, for it's written in the Books of Moses that one hung on a tree is cursed by God. That idea almost seems like a contradiction. In fact, it is! Jesus' opponents wanted to prove that He was not the Messiah, and so they said: "We'll go to the Romans and say, 'This guy is trying to create a movement against the roman empire. Crucify Him." That way, if any person interested in this Jesus movement asked if Jesus was the Messiah, the opponents of Jesus could just point to the Books of Moses and its verse and say, "Oh, look there! It says that one hung on a tree is cursed by God. Therefore, He's a false Messiah." I'm sure this turned plenty of people away from the Jesus movement. However, the Jesus group used other verses from the the Torah and other books to make their point. It's called the NT. Despite the fact Jesus says, "nobody has power over me--only God who has given the Romans the power to crucify me," many Christians still say the Jews killed the Christ. This idea has similarities to perspectivism. You could say the Jews didn't crucify Jesus, for they took Him to the Roman authorities, and that the Jews didn't kill Him . . . but later some later Jewish leaders only thought so (Koran 2.154-157; 4.27; 8.17).
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
(1) They overlook the fact that Muhammad isn't speaking to Christians, and that Muhammad is simply addressing a particular group of Jewish tribes. This is a fact. Unfortunately, I can't post links at the moment (I have to make 15 posts or more), but here's how one of my sources reads: "The Qur’an confirmed first century Jewish manuscripts in which some Jews falsely 'boasted' and claimed credit for Jesus’ death. For example, Medinan Jews and their predecessors 'were under an illusion when they took credit for and boasted of this accomplishment.'" The Romans crucified Jesus; however, Muhammad stresses an important point . . .
The Jews weren't boasting about killing Jesus. They were aware that the Romans had crucified Jesus. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus was spread by Christians, or the followers of the Jesus movement which led to Christianity. I am not even aware of any first century Jewish documents that even mentioned Jesus (this is excluding what we find in the NT as it became Christian writings). So since first century Jews never produced those supposed manuscripts that your source is speaking, I wouldn't give it too much credence.

Also, I may be off here, but my understanding of Muhammad is that he was addressing those who would become Muslims, his followers. I don't see any reason for him to address Jews who never claimed to kill Jesus anyway.
(2) God killed the Christ. This is why the Koran reads: "they [the Jews] killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [the Jews] . . ." Interpret 4.127 through the lens of 8.17, which says: "Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower." This verse was written after the battle of badr. Maybe I should start a silly controversy around it, saying, "Muhammad's army didn't even lift a finger; God slew them all!It was a miracle!" LMAO! Obviously the language in 4.127 and 8.17 are similar. Let us keep this in mind, for . . .
They may be similar, but they are also quite different. The first verse is speaking of a seemingly illusion to fool the Jews. The second is simply stating that God helped. It isn't suggesting that what was done was an illusion at all. It's not claiming that what happened actually didn't happen. The differences are quite large.
(3) When speaking with "the Jews," Jesus said: "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:17-19). Also, read John 19:11, which is where you can find Jesus saying this to Pilate: "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." This emphasis on God having power over the life, death, and resurretion of the Christ is what Muhammad is magnifying when he said: "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them." Nay, God slew Jesus, and "those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not . . ." The substitution theory and the swoon theory just really, really, really don't make sense.
They only don't make sense if you interpret the ideas being spoken in the way that you did. Jesus admits that humans had power over him. John may claim that the power was given by God, but that does not take away the fact that those humans still had the power.
(4) Even orthodox Muslims can't even agree on 4. 127. Many of them have supported the "substitution" theory in the past, and the swoon theory is becoming the new craze among mainstream Muslim interpretation, but this is BS. Other Muslims have also supported my theory here, and it makes the most sense. For example, al-Hallaj and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.
It only makes the most sense to you and people who believe like you. The fact that there is still quite a bit of debate about it though suggests that it isn't such an easy task to see what it really meant.
Conclusion: mainstream Muslim and Christian interpretation of 4.127 is wrong. Muhammad believed this: the Messiah was crucified and died on the cross at the hand of God.
You have no authority to say what Muhammad believed. It is not that simple. That is why there is a debate.
Many Jewish religious leaders during the time would find this hard to believe, for it's written in the Books of Moses that one hung on a tree is cursed by God. That idea almost seems like a contradiction. In fact, it is!
It isn't a contradiction. It never that that Jesus being crucified wasn't a curse. Also, Jewish religious leaders during the time would have had no problem believing it. The Jews never saw Jesus as the Messiah. He was just one more failed messiah nailed to a tree.
Jesus' opponents wanted to prove that He was not the Messiah, and so they said: "We'll go to the Romans and say, 'This guy is trying to create a movement against the roman empire. Crucify Him." That way, if any person interested in this Jesus movement asked if Jesus was the Messiah, the opponents of Jesus could just point to the Books of Moses and its verse and say, "Oh, look there! It says that one hung on a tree is cursed by God. Therefore, He's a false Messiah."
Except you ignore what we know historically. Jesus was a criminal in the eyes of Rome. The Romans didn't need some random people telling them that. They say it when Jesus had his scene in the Temple.
I'm sure this turned plenty of people away from the Jesus movement. However, the Jesus group used other verses from the the Torah and other books to make their point. It's called the NT. Despite the fact Jesus says, "nobody has power over me--only God who has given the Romans the power to crucify me," many Christians still say the Jews killed the Christ. This idea has similarities to perspectivism. You could say the Jews didn't crucify Jesus, for they took Him to the Roman authorities, and that the Jews didn't kill Him . . . but later some later Jewish leaders only thought so (Koran 2.154-157; 4.27; 8.17).
Some Christian history would go a long way here. Also, understanding that the other Gospels state different ideas.
 

ahanu

New Member
i think this verse will clarify it

It says in the Quran, that the Jews claim:

“We killed Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, Messenger of God.”

However, God denies this, as the verse continues:

“But they killed him not, nor crucified him; It was only a likeness shown to them: Most certainly they killed him not. Rather, God lifted him up to Himself.” (Quran 4:157-8)

Refer to these passages, Islam432:

"And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them). Allah is Seer of (His) bondmen. Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom" (3.20-21).

"Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?" (2.85; 2.91).

"And We caused the Mount to tower above them at (the taking of) their covenant: and We bade them: Enter the gate, prostrate! and We bode them: Transgress not the Sabbath! and We took from them a firm covenant. Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened - Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few -" (4.154-155).

Notice what your Koran repeatedly says about men that slay the prophets wrongfully.

I think your clarifying needs more clarifying.

I'll come back to fallingblood's comments.
 

ahanu

New Member
The Jews weren't boasting about killing Jesus. They were aware that the Romans had crucified Jesus. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus was spread by Christians, or the followers of the Jesus movement which led to Christianity.

"The Jews" (or particular Jews in question) carry the responsibility of killing Jesus. The Romans did the work. The Koran simply states the Jews did not kill Jesus: "That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’." I'm curious as to who is it "they" specifically refers. Muhammad was surrounded by intense hostility, and claimed to be a prophet. Surely . . . some Jews did not like this and Muhammad's saying that Jesus was a prophet. Since Muhammad stated this as a fact, it is highly probable some Jews did boast about killing Jesus, and that Jesus died on a tree. This seems like references to some Jewish people during Muhammad's lifetime.

I am not even aware of any first century Jewish documents that even mentioned Jesus (this is excluding what we find in the NT as it became Christian writings). So since first century Jews never produced those supposed manuscripts that your source is speaking, I wouldn't give it too much credence.

Okay. I may agree with you on this; I wanted to check and see if anybody else has heard of this.

Also, I may be off here, but my understanding of Muhammad is that he was addressing those who would become Muslims, his followers. I don't see any reason for him to address Jews who never claimed to kill Jesus anyway.

Yes, and those Muslims (or whoever it was) would relate what they were told to these particular Jews. This was what I meant in saying Muhammad is addressing some Jews. It's my understanding of Muhammad's belief, the Muslim's belief during the time, and how they would reply to such "boasting," in whatever form it may have been in.

They may be similar, but they are also quite different. The first verse is speaking of a seemingly illusion to fool the Jews. The second is simply stating that God helped. It isn't suggesting that what was done was an illusion at all. It's not claiming that what happened actually didn't happen. The differences are quite large.

What kind of illusion? Is it a substituted man in Jesus' place or is the illusion the same as what has been mentioned in 8.17?

"Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower."

The Muslims were under the illusion that they "slew them." This is obvious.

They only don't make sense if you interpret the ideas being spoken in the way that you did. Jesus admits that humans had power over him. John may claim that the power was given by God, but that does not take away the fact that those humans still had the power

The scholar Parrinder comments on 8.17 with the following words: "They were sternly reminded that man can do nothing of himself, a doctrine that became deeply rooted in Islam." This is also alluded to in Jesus' words to Pilate. This could be the illusion that Muhammad comments on when saying: "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them." Why such strange wording? Why not just bluntly say, "the Christians are wrong, Christ was never crucified, and that the Christians are liars?"

You have no authority to say what Muhammad believed. It is not that simple. That is why there is a debate

I'm a Baha'i. I operate under the authority of Baha'u'llah's interpretation of what happened during these events. Also, Abdul-Baha has confirmed that the Koran says Jesus was crucified. I'm open to debate. I want to present my beliefs with certainty. As you see above, I am willing to change one, which is about the supposed 1st century manuscripts about the Jews boasting.

Except you ignore what we know historically. Jesus was a criminal in the eyes of Rome. The Romans didn't need some random people telling them that. They say it when Jesus had his scene in the Temple.

Random people? I'm sure these "random people" had political motives. Could you quote the verse, please?
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
"The Jews" (or particular Jews in question) carry the responsibility of killing Jesus. The Romans did the work. The Koran simply states the Jews did not kill Jesus: "That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’." I'm curious as to who is it "they" specifically refers. Muhammad was surrounded by intense hostility, and claimed to be a prophet. Surely . . . some Jews did not like this and Muhammad's saying that Jesus was a prophet. Since Muhammad stated this as a fact, it is highly probable some Jews did boast about killing Jesus, and that Jesus died on a tree. This seems like references to some Jewish people during Muhammad's lifetime.
Actually, it is not a high probability that the Jews cared what Muhammad was saying. The Jews, during that time, were a small minority, who were, for the most part, without a home. However, we do see Muhammad, at least at the beginning, were decent to the Jews. The Jews actually saw more favor then than they had in a long time. Rarely did the Jews live with the freedom that they did under, at least the first part of Muhammad's rule. With the way in which they were treated, there is little reason to assume that they had a problem with what Muhammad was saying.

The Jews had a long history with the Christians, and the Christian claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Never do we see the Jews claiming responsibility for the death of Jesus even then. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus was a Christian invention. It is then more likely to assume that Muhammad got his idea from the Christian stories circulating about the Jews killing Jesus.

The fact that it even states anything about the Jews killing Jesus would suggest some Christian influences there. Again though, there is little evidence, if any, that the Jews claimed responsibility for the death of Jesus. There was no reason to, as they had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.
Yes, and those Muslims (or whoever it was) would relate what they were told to these particular Jews. This was what I meant in saying Muhammad is addressing some Jews. It's my understanding of Muhammad's belief, the Muslim's belief during the time, and how they would reply to such "boasting," in whatever form it may have been in.
Muhammad actually allowed the Jews to keep their own religion. So even though Muslims may have related what they were told to particular, but there is little reason to believe this would have caused those Jews then to start saying that they killed Jesus. There is no reason for them to have done so, and there is no real evidence to suggest it.
What kind of illusion? Is it a substituted man in Jesus' place or is the illusion the same as what has been mentioned in 8.17?

"Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower."

The Muslims were under the illusion that they "slew them." This is obvious.
In regards to the death of Jesus, we are told that they simply believed, as it looked that way, that they killed Jesus. We are then under the assumption that Jesus in fact did not die, just appeared so. With the case of the Muslims battle, there is no such appearance. The opponents were slewed. We are just told that it was with the help of God, it was through God that they were slewed. That is the difference.
The scholar Parrinder comments on 8.17 with the following words: "They were sternly reminded that man can do nothing of himself, a doctrine that became deeply rooted in Islam." This is also alluded to in Jesus' words to Pilate. This could be the illusion that Muhammad comments on when saying: "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them." Why such strange wording? Why not just bluntly say, "the Christians are wrong, Christ was never crucified, and that the Christians are liars?"
You have to understand the writing style during that time. It is basically the simple. The strange wording you point out isn't really strange at all.
I'm a Baha'i. I operate under the authority of Baha'u'llah's interpretation of what happened during these events. Also, Abdul-Baha has confirmed that the Koran says Jesus was crucified. I'm open to debate. I want to present my beliefs with certainty. As you see above, I am willing to change one, which is about the supposed 1st century manuscripts about the Jews boasting.
So you have faith in what one person says. That is alright. However, we have done much research since the 1920's, and know much more about what most likely happened. For me, I see no authority of Baha'u'llah's interpretation, and I see no reason to give them much credence on their own, unless backed up. However, seeing that we have moved by leaps and bounds in the scholarly work on the subject since, I see little reason to give credence over what we know now.
Random people? I'm sure these "random people" had political motives. Could you quote the verse, please?
If we look at Pilate in general, we know that he needed little to execute insurrectionists, which Jesus would have been considered. I'm not talking about what the Bible or Quran states, as they are not the best historical records. The Bible, in regards to the trial, is very highly contradictory in the first place.
 

ahanu

New Member
Actually, it is not a high probability that the Jews cared what Muhammad was saying. The Jews, during that time, were a small minority, who were, for the most part, without a home. However, we do see Muhammad, at least at the beginning, were decent to the Jews. The Jews actually saw more favor then than they had in a long time. Rarely did the Jews live with the freedom that they did under, at least the first part of Muhammad's rule. With the way in which they were treated, there is little reason to assume that they had a problem with what Muhammad was saying. The Jews had a long history with the Christians, and the Christian claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Never do we see the Jews claiming responsibility for the death of Jesus even then. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus was a Christian invention. It is then more likely to assume that Muhammad got his idea from the Christian stories circulating about the Jews killing Jesus. The fact that it even states anything about the Jews killing Jesus would suggest some Christian influences there. Again though, there is little evidence, if any, that the Jews claimed responsibility for the death of Jesus. There was no reason to, as they had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Could you include sources, please? The only reason I don’t include links for reading is because I need more than 15 posts.

In regards to the death of Jesus, we are told that they simply believed, as it looked that way, that they killed Jesus. We are then under the assumption that Jesus in fact did not die, just appeared so. With the case of the Muslims battle, there is no such appearance. The opponents were slewed. We are just told that it was with the help of God, it was through God that they were slewed. That is the difference

Nah, they are not as different as you make it out to be, or should I say as you would like it to be? The Koran reads:

“they [the Jews] killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [the Jews] . . ."

“It” could refer to “Jesus” or the “crucifixion” or “both”. Because the Koran reads, “So it [the crucifixion or Jesus or both] was made to appear to them,” does not imply that Jesus did not die on the cross. The only difference you highlight between 4.127 and 8.17 is the fact that 8.17 reads: “God slew them.”

"Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower."

You miss an important point here. The verses in which 4.127 are included are about faithlessness, not about the crucifixion of Jesus, although the crucifixion of Jesus is always what Christian and Muslim debates emphasize. Instead, Muhammad is emphasizing that they [the Jews] have “ears and do not hear” and “eyes that do not see.” Todd Lawson, in his 2009 book on the crucifixion and the Koran, reads as follows in his introduction:

“The theme being pursued in this section of the Qur’an (and
we will return to this below) is not, it should be stressed and even
repeated, not the life, suffering and death of Jesus. Rather the main
topic here is ‘faithlessness’ in Arabic kufr, a subject much more
native to the Qur’anic worldview. Those people who are burdened
with this spiritual disability are referred to throughout the Qur’an
as kāfirūn and they come from a variety of social, religious and
ethnic backgrounds. The Qur’an contrasts this spiritual disease
with īmān (‘faithfulness, fidelity’) and islām (‘commitment and
submission to the divine law’). As in the case of kufr, those who
are blessed with faith also come from a variety of social, linguistic
and religious backgrounds. It is a universal problem. The Qur’an
is interested in describing traits and proclivities that are universally
human, and not interested in the slightest in demonizing this
or that group.17

The Qur’an, in the verses leading up to the ‘crucifixion verse’,
says that an example of faithlessness may be found in the history
of the Jews when they (1) ‘killed their prophets without justification’,
(2) slandered Mary, the mother of Jesus, defaming her
virtue, and (3) boasted that they had killed the Messiah. Note that
their deeds are being singled out here as examples of kufr – for
boasting that they could controvert the Will of God. They are not
being castigated for having killed him. The verses run as follows,
in the translation of Muh.ammad Asad:18

AND SO, [WE PUNISHED THEM] FOR THE BREAKING OF THEIR
PLEDGE, AND THEIR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE GOD’S MESSAGES,
AND THEIR SLAYING OF PROPHETS AGAINST ALL RIGHT, AND THEIR
BOAST, ‘OUR HEARTS ARE ALREADY FULL OF KNOWLEDGE’ – NAY,
BUT GOD HAS SEALED THEIR HEARTS IN RESULT OF THEIR DENIAL
OF THE TRUTH, AND [NOW] THEY BELIEVE IN BUT FEW THINGS –;
AND FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH, AND THE
AWESOME CALUMNY WHICH THEY UTTER AGAINST MARY, AND
THEIR BOAST, ‘BEHOLD, WE HAVE SLAIN THE CHRIST JESUS, SON
OF MARY, [WHO CLAIMED TO BE] AN APOSTLE OF GOD!’ HOWEVER,
THEY DID NOT SLAY HIM, AND NEITHER DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT
IT ONLY SEEMED TO THEM [AS IF IT HAD BEEN] SO; AND, VERILY,
THOSE WHO HOLD CONFLICTING VIEWS THEREON ARE INDEED CONFUSED,
HAVING NO [REAL] KNOWLEDGE THEREOF, AND FOLLOWING
MERE CONJECTURE. FOR, OF A CERTAINTY, THEY DID NOT SLAY
HIM: NAY, GOD EXALTED HIM UNTO HIMSELF – AND GOD IS INDEED
ALMIGHTY, WISE. (Q. 4:155–8)

Thus the Qur’an speaks of the crucifixion one time, and even
in this single instance it is in the nature of parenthesis. It is not
a topic central to the Qur’an. It is, however, a topic central to
Muslim–Christian relations over the centuries. And over these
centuries, since this verse was revealed in Medina, sometime
between 622 and 632 CE, it has been interpreted by many Muslims
and Christians as denying the crucifixion of Jesus.”

17 W. Björkman, ‘Kāfi r’, EI², vol. 4, p. 407.
18 The Message of the Qur’ān Translated and Explained by Muh.ammad Asad
(Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1980).

Therefore, just because “God slew Him” is not included in 4.127 doesn’t really mean anything, because one can imply that since the the Jews mentioned have a “spiritual disability,” then they couldn’t comprehend that “God slew Him” and that it was a part of the divine plan.

So you have faith in what one person says. That is alright. However, we have done much research since the 1920's, and know much more about what most likely happened. For me, I see no authority of Baha'u'llah's interpretation, and I see no reason to give them much credence on their own, unless backed up. However, seeing that we have moved by leaps and bounds in the scholarly work on the subject since, I see little reason to give credence over what we know now.

Don’t interpret that I’m saying Baha’u’llah or Abdul-Baha agree with what I said in point one. I’m just constructing my understand of the history surrounding the crucifixion. What I’m saying about the Baha’i faith is specifically in regard to interpreting 4.127, for Abdul-Baha said: “In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and undying, and it was protected from the obsession and persecution of the enemies, for Christ is Eternal and Everlasting. How can he die? This death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ, and not upon the Spirit of Christ.“ This interpretation often goes overlooked in debates, and, since Todd Lawson has observed that the main point surrounding this verse is faithlessness, one can see the possibility in this interpretation of 4.127 being true. Since 1920, the Muslim and Christian interpretation of 4.17 has not progressed. People are still saying it could mean Jesus didn’t die, somebody else was substituted, or that Jesus died.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Could you include sources, please? The only reason I don’t include links for reading is because I need more than 15 posts.
L. Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity would address part of what I was saying.

Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A couple of online sources that would help as well.
Nah, they are not as different as you make it out to be, or should I say as you would like it to be? The Koran reads:
I believe they are different, and have stated why. They are addressing to different ideas. Instead of restating why I hold this position, I will just leave it at that.
Don’t interpret that I’m saying Baha’u’llah or Abdul-Baha agree with what I said in point one. I’m just constructing my understand of the history surrounding the crucifixion. What I’m saying about the Baha’i faith is specifically in regard to interpreting 4.127, for Abdul-Baha said: “In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and undying, and it was protected from the obsession and persecution of the enemies, for Christ is Eternal and Everlasting. How can he die? This death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ, and not upon the Spirit of Christ.“ This interpretation often goes overlooked in debates, and, since Todd Lawson has observed that the main point surrounding this verse is faithlessness, one can see the possibility in this interpretation of 4.127 being true. Since 1920, the Muslim and Christian interpretation of 4.17 has not progressed. People are still saying it could mean Jesus didn’t die, somebody else was substituted, or that Jesus died.
Since 1920, we have learned much about the death of Jesus. In my opinion, the Quran is completely useless, in this case, to understand the historical crucifixion of Jesus. It is highly removed from the actual events. All that it really can tell us about the crucifixion is what some later believed about it.

We know that Jesus was crucified. There is little, if anything scholarly debate on whether or not he was crucified. It is simply agreed upon that Jesus was crucified.

Now, there is theological debate on whether or not he was debated, but I find that of little use. In those cases, I agree with what the particular religion says they believe. In other words, if Muslims claim that they don't believe that Jesus was crucified, and that their holy work (for who else should know it better), said that he was either not crucified, or did not die on the cross, I believe they are the best to know what their holy book says.
 

ahanu

New Member
In other words, if Muslims claim that they don't believe that Jesus was crucified, and that their holy work (for who else should know it better), said that he was either not crucified, or did not die on the cross, I believe they are the best to know what their holy book says.

Which Muslims? Not all Muslims claim that Jesus wasn't crucified. You mean mainstream interpretation.

Refer to history.

Refer to Todd Lawson's book for clear irrefutable proof. The introduction of his book is available for free reading online.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Which Muslims? Not all Muslims claim that Jesus wasn't crucified. You mean mainstream interpretation.

Refer to history.

Refer to Todd Lawson's book for clear irrefutable proof. The introduction of his book is available for free reading online.
The stance of Islam was that Jesus either did not die on the cross, or simply was not crucified. That is the stance. That is not to say that other Muslims state something else, but I simply don't have the effort, or care to really research all of the stances.

The same thing is true for the resurrection in Christianity. The official stance of Christianity is that Jesus was physically resurrected. However, there are some Christians who believe differently. In this case, what the majority, the mainstream states, in my opinion, should be the stance that we use in general.
 

ahanu

New Member
The stance of Islam was that Jesus either did not die on the cross, or simply was not crucified. That is the stance. That is not to say that other Muslims state something else, but I simply don't have the effort, or care to really research all of the stances.

The same thing is true for the resurrection in Christianity. The official stance of Christianity is that Jesus was physically resurrected. However, there are some Christians who believe differently. In this case, what the majority, the mainstream states, in my opinion, should be the stance that we use in general.

No it's not. The stance of Islam is confusion on 4.127 and crucifixion. Fact: there's never been any orthodox view on this verse. Here's conflicting orthodox Muslims with conflicting opinions. However, in Christianity, orthodox Christians agree on the physical resurrection of Jesus.

A select examination of what Muslims have said reveals that both the substitution theory and the swoon theory have historical support, as do several other views. Muslims have exegeted certain Qur’anic verses and compiled their findings in tafsir literature (Qur’anic commentary). A brief look below at the most influential commentators among orthodox Muslims50 (al-Tabari, Fakhr al-Din al Razi, al-Qurtubi, al-Baydawi and Sayyid Qutb) in Sunni tradition will show that various views have gained acceptance and that there has never been only one view.

Non-Muslim readers of the Qur’an (who know Arabic) would readily say that the word tawaffa (to receive,” or “to take back” is the most common way of saying that someone has died, and Muslim readers would tend to agree.

First, it is intriguing to see what al-Tabari (d. 923) says about the cross. Though not the earliest of Islamic commentators, because of his lasting influence, he is the ‘king of commentators.’ As always, al-Tabari does a thorough job ...in discussing 3:55. In his painstaking way, he lists all the different options in the traditions and then in the end indicates his preference. On this passage, he lists four possibilities, one of which is a real, literal dying. In the end, Tabari suggests that the one he prefers is the substitution theory, but
for Tabari real death is a possibility.

Second, Fakhr al-Din al Razi (d. 1210) has been referred to as having a “brilliant, analytical and questioning mind.” In reference to 3:55, he lists eight different possible meanings to mutawaffika and indicates that he prefers the outward sense of “causing you to die.” Like the
others he spends a lot of time on 4:157 and also leans toward some kind of substitution theory, but even here he lists 5 different versions of the theory. He is the most detailed and obviously has a good understanding of what Eastern Christians believed about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Third, al-Qurtubi (d. 1272) has written one of the most respected commentaries on the Qur’an. Apparently, he does not like the theory that Jesus died and rose again because he thinks it is not logical since Jesus must come back at the end of time and kill the anti-Christ. Yet, he too feels obligated to list real death as one of the options. He does prefer the substitution theory, and in particular with his comments on 4:157,55 but he does acknowledge that other theories have had
some support among Muslims. In reference to 5:117, he comments on the word wafat and indicates that it literally means death.

Fourth, al-Baydawi (d. between 1284 and 1316) similarly lists all the various legitimate interpretations of various passages without giving a preference. His commentary is the most trusted and popular commentary among Muslims today because of its convenient size and because it effectively argues against Mu’tazilite views. In reference to 3:55, he lists five different possibilities. Baydawi is very much aware of the substitution theory but feels it has theological and grammatical problems. The Muslim writer, Mahmoud Ayoub, agrees that the substitution theory is not plausible.

Fifth, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) is one of the fathers of fundamentalism and probably the best-known Sunni commentator today. Although not trained in Al-Azhar University, nevertheless he wasvery influential in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is true that Qutb does his best to refute the errorsof Christianity, yet in reference to the crucifixion, he comes across as agnostic. His dispute with Christians is not over the history of the event but over the theology of it. Again, it is quite interesting that although he questions the Christian accounts in reference to the cross, he does not absolutely throw them out.

In summary, it is noted that the above-mentioned passages from the Qur’an, and the commentaries that followed, leave room for the possibility that Jesus did in fact die. Pointedly, throughout the hundreds of years there never has been one single “correct” or well-established view as to what actually took place. Arguably, the difficult passage (4:157) can be interpreted in light of the other three that are easier to manage. Again, the encouraging thing is that Muslims and Christians have things to discuss on this issue as well.”
 
Top