Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody, I am new to the community and I just have a question regarding the Shia Muslim view on the crucifixion of Christ. 

I have been interested in comparative religion as of late and I have been studying up on Islamic Christology just to get a better idea of it, and most of my focus has been on the Islamic view of Jesus's crucifixion which is central to my faith and I know can be of huge controversy between Christians and Muslims. As I understand it, the vast majority of  Muslims (mainly Sunni) hold to the a substitution view on the death of Christ, that is, someone was made to appear like Christ (possibly Judas) and was crucified in his place instead while Jesus was assumed into heaven by the help of Allah. This seems to be in full agreement with Surah An-Nisa 4:57 where is explicity states, "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..." 

I have, however, come across alternative views and interpretations among with verse, particularly among Ahmaddiyas who advocate for a swoon theory, and I have also come across different theories among Shias, some holding to the traditional view that most Sunnis hold to, while others holding to a more esoteric view like the Ismaili's Shias, though I haven't been able to find a full explanation of their belief. As far as I understand it, some Sunnis don't consider Shias to be true Muslims due to these kinds of beliefs.

Could anyone further explain the views on the crucifixion of Jesus in Shia Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Christianity, welcome to the site. 

Surat 4 is all about the Jews, It starts by mentioning them as Jews but as the Surat goes on it starts calling them "they" or "them" so by the time you get to ayah 157 The Jews boasted about killing Jesus but they didn't. Matter of fact they had no authority to kill anyone, being under Roman rule. The theories that you mention are called conjecture by the same ayah. 

A little further down in 162;

Quote

But those of them who are firm in knowledge and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which was revealed before thee, especially the diligent in prayer and those who pay the poor-due, the believers in Allah and the Last Day. Upon these We shall bestow immense reward.

Those who were firm in knowledge were those who were closest to Jesus at the time, namely the disciples. The same which went on to teach a risen savior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Christianity said:

Hello everybody, I am new to the community and I just have a question regarding the Shia Muslim view on the crucifixion of Christ. 

I have been interested in comparative religion as of late and I have been studying up on Islamic Christology just to get a better idea of it, and most of my focus has been on the Islamic view of Jesus's crucifixion which is central to my faith and I know can be of huge controversy between Christians and Muslims. As I understand it, the vast majority of  Muslims (mainly Sunni) hold to the a substitution view on the death of Christ, that is, someone was made to appear like Christ (possibly Judas) and was crucified in his place instead while Jesus was assumed into heaven by the help of Allah. This seems to be in full agreement with Surah An-Nisa 4:57 where is explicity states, "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..." 

I have, however, come across alternative views and interpretations among with verse, particularly among Ahmaddiyas who advocate for a swoon theory, and I have also come across different theories among Shias, some holding to the traditional view that most Sunnis hold to, while others holding to a more esoteric view like the Ismaili's Shias, though I haven't been able to find a full explanation of their belief. As far as I understand it, some Sunnis don't consider Shias to be true Muslims due to these kinds of beliefs.

Could anyone further explain the views on the crucifixion of Jesus in Shia Islam?

Hi Christianity, Shia religious view is that it was Judas who was made to appear as Jesus due to a miracle because Judas informed Jews about Jesus' location and sold himself for 30 silver coins. 

@Son of Placid

I disagree with him as according to my belief on the description of "Those firm in knowledge". Before us, firm in knowledge are Prophet Muhammad pbuhhp and His 12 successors who gave us this news but before it Christians and Jews have no knowledge about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2017 at 0:27 AM, Sindbad05 said:

I disagree with him as according to my belief on the description of "Those firm in knowledge". Before us, firm in knowledge are Prophet Muhammad pbuhhp and His 12 successors who gave us this news but before it Christians and Jews have no knowledge about this.

So you are saying that this was all a big fat secret even His closest disciples? Rather arrogant ahadith to say nobody knew anything until Muhammad showed up. Did these 12 successors also have it "revealed" or did Muhammad tip them off? The swap theory comes from the Gossip of Barnabas, written in the 1200s. Who's revelation was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace be with you,

While the apostle substitutionary theory is upheld as the formal Islamic alternative, I haven't found a reason to be certain about that. The reports on this subject are not strong, and Ibn `Abbas and the Isma`ilis had different views than this. Still, our oral traditions posits that an apostle replaced Jesus, perhaps Judas (who committed suicide after the crucifixion, but the accounts differ on how), or perhaps Thomas who was called the twin of Jesus in Gnosticism ("Thomas" in Aramaic means twin), and was said to have gone to India right after the crucifixion.

When the Quran says that God "made it appear unto them", it is referring to the enemies of Jesus and not his apostles. I haven't found a reason to believe that the 12 apostles actually preached the trinity, crucifixion, resurrection, or original sin. If we were to say that the Jewish Christians, who were very few by the second century, were the true inheritors of the apostolic tradition, then the closest religion to theirs today would be Islam.

It is undeniable that the perception that Jesus was crucified was popular, hence the phrase "it was made to appear unto them". The event is mentioned even in non-Christian accounts (Tacitus and Josephus). But while the crucifixion was central to Pauline Christian theology, (1) it plays absolutely no role in the Didache, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, and Gospel of Thomas, which are all early works with apostolic roots, (2) The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and coincidences, especially when their earliest manuscripts are taken into account, (3) The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (2nd century text) says that the one on the cross was a substitution, (4) Original sin and atonement are problematic theologically and rationally, were not really Jewish beliefs, and were never accepted by the Jewish Christians, who [I believe] had a stronger claim to Jesus than Pauline Christians.

Now what exactly happened, the Quran does not posit, nor can we know with much certainty. Some Muslims (particularly the Isma`ilis) have even suggested that Jesus was nailed to the cross, but not actually killed (salaba in Arabic means "death by crucifixion"), and this interpretation can be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels if need be. The ethos of the Quranic account is that God saved Jesus, in the same way He saved the other Quranic prophets, and in the same way He would save Muhammad (s). Just as God delivered Noah from the Flood, Abraham from the fire, Moses from Pharaoh, and Salih/Shu`ayb/Lut/Hud from their communities, God delivered Jesus from his enemies, and God would similarly deliver Muhammad (s) from his enemies. There were indeed prophets that were killed, but the Quran's prophetic stories are largely allusions to our Prophet (s), addressing the affairs of his ministry, his family, his companions, and his future salvation (which happened).

Some of our polemical texts will highlight ambiguities in the crucifixion story, for example:

(1) Contradictions on who carried the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, and John).
(2) Contradictions on what was written on the cross. (Mark 15:26, Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38, John 19:19)
(3) The lack of a clear resurrection story in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was probably the earliest Gospel.
(4) The witnesses of the crucifixion depend on the Gospel: some women from afar, or Mary and an apostle up close. (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25)
(5) Contradictions on what hour Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:25,  John 19:14-15)
(6) Contradictions on what Jesus' last words were. (Mark 15:34-37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30)
(7) Contradictions on the number of angels or witnesses at the grave of Jesus.
(8) Questions on the original sin: its place in Judaism, why God would need blood to forgive, how a sacrifice can account for future sins, why God would need to wait thousands of years before sending Jesus to alleviate the original sin.
(9) John the Evangelist was seemingly quelling doubts about crucifixion by including a spear thrust into the side of Jesus, to make sure he was dead, which was not mentioned in the three earlier Gospels. (John 19:34)
(10) The Sanhedrin trial of Jesus has no record besides the Gospels, and the trial breaks tens of rules and procedures that are typical of a Sanhedrin trial.
(11) Pilate offered to free one of two men: Jesus, or a rebel by the name of "Barabbas" - in earlier manuscripts, his name was "Jesus Barabbas", meaning, "Jesus the son of the Father", it would be funny if the wrong "Jesus" was crucified.
(12) Belief in the crucifixion would basically negate his prophethood in Judaism, according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, and this was probably by the Jews wanted Jesus crucified rather than simply assassinated.
(13) Jesus' descent into Hell would negate his Godhood; and is probably taken from Greek hero myth.
(14) A mass resurrection of saints in Matthew 27:51-53 is mentioned in 3 verses, but the account does not appear anywhere else, neither in the other Gospels nor in other texts, even though such a thing would've been notable enough to record; at least more notable than Jesus (as) riding a donkey into Jerusalem.
(15) According to the Synoptic Gospels, all of Jesus' apostles and family members forsook Jesus and never attended the crucifixion.
(16) In Mark 16, on the Sunday, the women went to anoint Jesus' buried corpse with spices - this was not a practice, as in Judaism a tomb is not re-opened after it is closed unless there is reason to believe that the person in it is still alive - so there is a subtle implication that these women believed that the one in the tomb was still alive, and needed to be sought for treatment.
(17) Jesus supposedly prophesied that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights, but he was only in the tomb for 1 day and 2 nights.
(18) In Matthew 12:40, Jesus compared his three day burial to Jonah's three days in the whale; but Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale and not dead.
(19) In Luke 4:10-12, Jesus quotes Psalm 91, which if you read in full, suggests that the Messiah will be saved by God and lifted up.
(20) Sacrifices were never crucified.

And Allah knows best.

PS: I love Catholicism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

con·tra·dic·tion  ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/  noun

a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

(1) Contradictions on who carried the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, and John).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree on exactly who was grabbed from the crowd to carry the cross. John simply mentions that Jesus left the trial carrying the cross. Apparently John wasn't there to see the exchange, so he didn't mention it. How is that a contradiction?

(2) Contradictions on what was written on the cross. (Mark 15:26, Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38, John 19:19)

It was Jesus on the cross, two mention it, two don't, but they all say King of the Jews. Still not a contradiction.

(3) The lack of a clear resurrection story in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was probably the earliest Gospel.

The earliest manuscript of Mark is a fragment. 7Q5 as it's called, and it only includes two verses in their entirety, Mark 6, 52,53. It speaks of those who would not believe a miracle because their hearts were hardened. Definitely a lack of clear story. It comes with the lack of pages.

(4) The witnesses of the crucifixion depend on the Gospel: some women from afar, or Mary and an apostle up close. (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25)  

When was each disciple there to record what they saw? Did John come later, therefore seeing them closer to the cross? Mary, Mary, and all, had at least three hours to move from "afar" to "by the cross"  Within that time many people came and went.

(5) Contradictions on what hour Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:25,  John 19:14-15)

John seems to be the late comer to the crucifixion. Mark said it was the third hour, John says "about the sixth hour". Odd that John may have lost track of time, but he doesn't insist on the time. Not enough to call it a contradiction.

(6) Contradictions on what Jesus' last words were. (Mark 15:34-37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30)

Mark mentions, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” Luke calls it a loud voice. I guess it depends how close you are as to what you hear, John does not mention it. John does not say Jesus never said it, he recorded what Jesus said from the cross to His mother, and to himself. Mark doesn't mention Jesus saying anything. He may have been afar off at the time.

(7) Contradictions on the number of angels or witnesses at the grave of Jesus.

Recorded from the reports of emotional women who thought they saw a ghost, or two. None of the records say there was only one angel, Where there are two, there is also one. If one spoke, he was most noticed. Either way Mary Magdalene didn't believe it and ran off to the disciples.

(8) Questions on the original sin: its place in Judaism, why God would need blood to forgive, how a sacrifice can account for future sins, why God would need to wait thousands of years before sending Jesus to alleviate the original sin.  

Original sin is not Biblical. It's a flawed concept of the event that evolved much later on. The sin of disobedience was forgiven, but the impurity of the fruit caused a physical change in their bodies and was passed down via genetics, aka death. Everybody gets to die.

(9) John the Evangelist was seemingly quelling doubts about crucifixion by including a spear thrust into the side of Jesus, to make sure he was dead, which was not mentioned in the three earlier Gospels. (John 19:34)

John was there, the others were not. Conspiracy theory? 

(10) The Sanhedrin trial of Jesus has no record besides the Gospels, and the trial breaks tens of rules and procedures that are typical of a Sanhedrin trial.

Yes, the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus gone, dead was good enough. They broke all kinds of rules to get what they wanted. Nobody records that stuff, on purpose.

(11) Pilate offered to free one of two men: Jesus, or a rebel by the name of "Barabbas" - in earlier manuscripts, his name was "Jesus Barabbas", meaning, "Jesus the son of the Father", it would be funny if the wrong "Jesus" was crucified.

no comment.

(12) Belief in the crucifixion would basically negate his prophethood in Judaism, according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, and this was probably by the Jews wanted Jesus crucified rather than simply assassinated.

Deuteronomy speaks of  "a" man hung on a tree. A man who gets hung usually does something bad enough to deserve it, therefore considered accursed of God. That's what the Jews wanted to portray.

(13) Jesus' descent into Hell would negate his Godhood; and is probably taken from Greek hero myth.

Jesus could not negate a false theory brought about 300 years after His death. What Greek hero myth?

(14) A mass resurrection of saints in Matthew 27:51-53 is mentioned in 3 verses, but the account does not appear anywhere else, neither in the other Gospels nor in other texts, even though such a thing would've been notable enough to record; at least more notable than Jesus (as) riding a donkey into Jerusalem.

Here again, Where was Matthew, where were the rest? Don't expect the Jews to be telling anyone anything. Everyone was there to see Jesus on a donkey, it was a happy occasion, not to be confused with hiding for your life.

(15) According to the Synoptic Gospels, all of Jesus' apostles and family members forsook Jesus and never attended the crucifixion.

They fled the scene when Jesus was taken, who said nobody showed up? Seems like Peter was there, and whichever disciple who was wrapped in a robe and ran off naked. John was obviously there, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded what they saw/heard, so who wasn't there? I would suspect some headed for the hills while others remained incognito for fear of being crucified as well...after all.


(16) In Mark 16, on the Sunday, the women went to anoint Jesus' buried corpse with spices - this was not a practice, as in Judaism a tomb is not re-opened after it is closed unless there is reason to believe that the person in it is still alive - so there is a subtle implication that these women believed that the one in the tomb was still alive, and needed to be sought for treatment.

Wishful thinking? Actually, this leans on another Islamic conjecture.

(17) Jesus supposedly prophesied that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights, but he was only in the tomb for 1 day and 2 nights.

According to a modern day calendar, and not realizing that one celebration followed another, this is what it seems to say. Didn't make sense to me either.  I'd have to find it again, but there is evidence Jesus was actually crucified on a Thursday. 

(18) In Matthew 12:40, Jesus compared his three day burial to Jonah's three days in the whale; but Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale and not dead.

Jesus didn't say dead, He said, "In the heart of the earth" 


(19) In Luke 4:10-12, Jesus quotes Psalm 91, which if you read in full, suggests that the Messiah will be saved by God and lifted up.

Actually, that is a narration from Luke, who made the comparison. Jesus didn't say it.

(20) Sacrifices were never crucified.

Sacrifices were normally burned. Not much use crucifying anything after that. Jesus considered as a sacrifice is a whole nuther nuther. 

Thank you for only going to 20.

P.S.

The Epistle of James, and Epistle of Jude were letter to their churches. Churches with people who had already been taught such. The epistles were to move them along, not mention the same thing over n over.

The Gospel of Thomas may well be the oral gospel, but it is based on the sayings of Jesus, not His life story, so no, you won't find anything there.

Check out the Epistle of Barnabas. 

Edited by Son of Placid
P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Wishful thinking?

Again, I love you and your father, and I think you both are fair individuals, and I hope my disagreements are not taken personally.

Much of what you've noted assumes that the Gospel authors were four distinct eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus (as), but I and most modern historians find that claim to be unsubstantiated. The Gospels were written anonymously in third person, probably by well-educated Greek Christians who compiled existing accounts. They probably appeared after 70 CE (Paul was writing in the 50s, he makes no mention of these Gospels), and the very earliest manuscripts did not even have names on them ("Matthew" "Mark" etc). Matthew and Luke were definitely based on Mark. There is a clear evolution in how Jesus is described in each successive Gospel, with higher Christology in Matthew and Luke and then some divinity in John. Scribes also seemed okay with just editing in new details with the centuries, and some of these interpolations are still in, without any clear reason or justification.

The Gospels were not meant to be read side-by-side like they are today. The New Testament canon is a product of the second century - the first was made by Marcion, a heretic, and then the Church Fathers responded with their own. Some texts were accepted and other texts were rejected. Some Christians try to force differing details between the Gospels to make it seem like the authors were writing harmoniously, but the texts are disparate and have some very clear differences that are not just incidental.

I stand by my list, but let me just save time by responding to the most important details:

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

The earliest manuscript of Mark is a fragment. 7Q5 as it's called, and it only includes two verses in their entirety, Mark 6, 52,53. It speaks of those who would not believe a miracle because their hearts were hardened. Definitely a lack of clear story. It comes with the lack of pages.

Actually the two oldest manuscripts of Mark 16, from the fourth century, end the story with the women fleeing the empty tomb (verse 8). Afterwards, there were two streams of manuscripts - those that had the shorter ending, and those that had the longer ending.

So to review the significance of this: the oldest Christian Gospel makes no mention of Mary Magdalene seeing the resurrected Jesus, or Jesus appearing to his disciples, or Jesus' ascension. These, again, are extremely important details, perhaps much more important than the empty tomb.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

When was each disciple there to record what they saw? Did John come later, therefore seeing them closer to the cross? Mary, Mary, and all, had at least three hours to move from "afar" to "by the cross"  Within that time many people came and went.

It's just odd that Mark, the oldest Gospel, would not mention that Jesus' own mother and apostle was there at the cross, and only mentions these women who watched from a distance. If Mark had 40 years to review the story with his apostle friends, then you'd think that the most important details would be noted. The Gospel accounts go from "they all forsook him and fled" to "they came to watch the crucifixion".

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

John seems to be the late comer to the crucifixion. Mark said it was the third hour, John says "about the sixth hour". Odd that John may have lost track of time, but he doesn't insist on the time. Not enough to call it a contradiction.

I guess the readers will judge this one. To me, "three" and "about six" are categorical contradictions. If John's is a mistake, then we'd have to accept that God's inspiration is ambiguous and not very specific.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Mark mentions, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” Luke calls it a loud voice. I guess it depends how close you are as to what you hear, John does not mention it. John does not say Jesus never said it, he recorded what Jesus said from the cross to His mother, and to himself. Mark doesn't mention Jesus saying anything. He may have been afar off at the time.

The three mentioned "last words" are (1) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, (2) Father into your hands I commend my spirit, (3) It is finished.

Again, if these three were witnesses writing complementary texts over the decades, then they would've been able to work these details out.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

(8) Questions on the original sin: its place in Judaism, why God would need blood to forgive, how a sacrifice can account for future sins, why God would need to wait thousands of years before sending Jesus to alleviate the original sin.  

Original sin is not Biblical. It's a flawed concept of the event that evolved much later on. The sin of disobedience was forgiven, but the impurity of the fruit caused a physical change in their bodies and was passed down via genetics, aka death. Everybody gets to die.

Is that it? Because anyone who believes in Jesus will die, and anyone who does not will also die. Do you believe in Hellfire, and if so, do those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus go there? If yes, then my original questions still stand and require answers.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

John was there, the others were not. Conspiracy theory? 

Well this is speculative on my part, but the spear thrust seems to be an important literary device used to quell doubts. If Mark lacked a resurrection account, and Matthew and Luke mentioned a very brief crucifixion (remember: crucifixions lasted days and even weeks, not just a few hours), then an empty tomb would make sense from a purely naturalistic viewpoint. This is especially important when we consider that the women came to open up the tomb of Jesus and apply oils and spices on his body - something that was not done to corpses in Judaism. This makes it seem as though these women needed to check to see if Jesus was really dead.

By the way, in the Talmud, a person is not considered clinically dead until the fourth day. Until then, they are "sleeping", and this is reflected in Matthew 9:24.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Deuteronomy speaks of  "a" man hung on a tree. A man who gets hung usually does something bad enough to deserve it, therefore considered accursed of God. That's what the Jews wanted to portray.

So would it be fair to say that the Jews succeeded in their goal? If so, Jesus would be considered cursed, and therefore his messianism would be negated. Jesus being saved from crucifixion could be a way to save him from such imagery.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Jesus could not negate a false theory brought about 300 years after His death. What Greek hero myth?

Well in short, Greek heroes would visit Hades near the end of their story. We see this with in a handful of hero myths including Hercules.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

According to a modern day calendar, and not realizing that one celebration followed another, this is what it seems to say. Didn't make sense to me either.  I'd have to find it again, but there is evidence Jesus was actually crucified on a Thursday. 

I'd be interested in seeing this alternative theory, because even if he were crucified on Thursday day, that would be 2 days and 3 nights.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Jesus didn't say dead, He said, "In the heart of the earth" 

This is exactly my point. Jesus compared himself to Jonah, but Jonah did not die and was not resurrected. He spent three days and three nights in the whale alive; and so the analogy would allude that Jesus was alive and not killed.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Actually, that is a narration from Luke, who made the comparison. Jesus didn't say it.

It appears to me that the devil had said this to Jesus. But even if Luke had said it, do you believe Luke was just quoting these verses at random? Or was it inspired, or was it taught by Jesus? Psalm 91 was a promise of protection, saying explicitly that they will not hurt this man, and that he will be lifted up by the angels. It's odd that Luke would apply this to Jesus yet also imply that Jesus was brutally killed.

 

23 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

The Epistle of James, and Epistle of Jude were letter to their churches. Churches with people who had already been taught such. The epistles were to move them along, not mention the same thing over n over.

The Gospel of Thomas may well be the oral gospel, but it is based on the sayings of Jesus, not His life story, so no, you won't find anything there.

It's interesting to me that the Didache, Jude, and James, which all seem to be very early and authentic texts, say nothing about the doctrine that is at the crux of Christianity. The Church of Jerusalem's attachment to the Law is another clue that much of this doctrine came from Paul and not the apostles. The Gospels then take after the Pauline tradition. The Ebionites take after the apostolic tradition, and they did not espouse these ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians always differed on many issues.  Paul and James had different views on the Law. But they seemingly solved that. Not that they came to consensus. That James epitle does not mention crucial events in Christianity does not mean they did not happen. All other NT books do. But why James did not mention is an interestinf question. Compere the fact that only 2 NT books mention the Virgin birth. Their stories being so different and contradictory that questioning them makes sense.

Didache does not mention Virgin birth either. If not for your belief in the correctness if the Quran,  dont you agree there is much more reason to question the historicity of the Virgin birth than the crucifixion of Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andres said:

Christians always differed on many issues.  Paul and James had different views on the Law. But they seemingly solved that. Not that they came to consensus. That James epitle does not mention crucial events in Christianity does not mean they did not happen. All other NT books do. But why James did not mention is an interestinf question. Compere the fact that only 2 NT books mention the Virgin birth. Their stories being so different and contradictory that questioning them makes sense.

Didache does not mention Virgin birth either. If not for your belief in the correctness if the Quran,  dont you agree there is much more reason to question the historicity of the Virgin birth than the crucifixion of Jesus?

The Jerusalem Church's insistence on certain universal laws for gentile converts can be found in Acts 15, which is quite similar to our Surah 5 verses 3-5. According to Eusebius, the bishops of the Jerusalem Church insisted on "the circumcision" (ie the Law pretty much) until they were outed in the Bar Kochba revolt in 134 CE. From this it would be fair to say that the apostles didn't share the same views as Paul on Jesus' sacrifice, atonement, and forgiveness of the original sin.

As for the virgin birth comparison, we can agree that the virgin birth is very marginal to Christians in comparison to the crucifixion, resurrection and atonement. The former is more anecdotal, and it would make sense that it would not be mentioned in the Didache, which is called "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations." But since the crucifixion is so central, it is strange that it would not be in this summary of the teachings. Then, James' epistle makes the famous statement "faith without works is dead", and Jude's epistle speaks of imposters hijacking the teachings. On a side note, it seems that part of the Ebionites also accepted the virgin birth.

The NT canon was of course created in the second century by the Church Fathers, who inherited Paul's tradition (heck over 50% of it is Paul's epistles) and so again, each book needs to be read independently rather than harmoniously ("The other books mentioned the crucifixion, so I won't say anything about it to avoid being redundant"). I think it's fair to say that the apostles have the greatest right to Jesus' message. If the apostles did believe Jesus was crucified - which we can't verify - then there still is not much evidence that they made a doctrine of atonement out of it; in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

If the apostles did not believe in the trinity or atonement, and they propagated a universal religion with some law observance, then the closest religion to theirs today would be Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Again, I love you and your father, and I think you both are fair individuals, and I hope my disagreements are not taken personally.

The feeling is mutual, and we've disagreed for years, lol. Not at all personal. It's not my story and many of the Muslims complaints about Christianity are mine as well. Many of my views are not mainstream either. You are also very fair and I appreciate your knowledge. We may agree to disagree, but the central point is we worship the same God. Our disagreements are based on our education coming from different backgrounds and sources. The eternal message remains the same. 

I'm not the guy who believes that every word in the KJV is totally and absolutely the word of God. I don't believe that of any book. From the time it leaves a Prophet's mouth, the corruption starts. There has to be errors. Prophet after Prophet, add demographics, and you will always come up with different beliefs. I'm reminded of a camp fire game we played as kids. One would whisper a phrase into the ear of another, and go around the circle. Never ever did the original message make it back to the one who started it. Many reasons.

As you say, we can't lay out the four Gospels and expect them to be word for word, nor absolutely accurate.The picture of four men standing there writing everything down at once...didn't happen. They obviously got together and exchanged stories. None were there for the birth of Jesus, so all accounts came from earlier sources, or as Jesus told them. 

Still, if one happens to be in the area when Mary is far off, do they have to stick around and record her steps until she is near? You know what I'm saying. Chances are, they went back to their dwelling, sat down and wrote what they remembered. 

Hung on a tree meant cursed of men, not cursed of God. The implication is always there, but God doesn't have to abide by it, nor accept it, you can't fool Him. Yes, that's what the Jews wanted. That's what they boasted. They only fooled themselves.

Quote

I'd be interested in seeing this alternative theory, because even if he were crucified on Thursday day, that would be 2 days and 3 nights.

Me too. I'm too forgetful to relay the details. When I find it, I'll certainly pass it on. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qa'im said:

This link argues that a Wednesday crucifixion would be impossible, perhaps you can assess its arguments from the scripture? http://biblelight.net/pasover.htm

This guy has Passover on a Friday, which is mainstream theory. That's what doesn't make sense.

This may not be as easy to listen to, but they use a calendar and everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Qa'im said:

If the apostles did not believe in the trinity or atonement, and they propagated a universal religion with some law observance, then the closest religion to theirs today would be Islam.

The Gospels say nothing about trinity. But it says Jesus is divine. This tradition goes right back to the first Christians, the apostles. Christianity is not Islam, nor is Judaism, does not matter in wich form. Islam is Islam,  different kinds of, just like every other religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His Ascension

https://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shiite-narrations-mahdi-muntazir-qaim/his-second-coming

1. Jabir al-Ansari reported that the Prophet (S) taught ‘Ali and Fatimah this prayer, and said to them, “When a misfortune descends upon you or you are afraid of a king’s injustice or something is lost, you should perform a good ablution, say a prayer with two rak‘at, raise your hands to heaven and say,

‘O Knower of the hidden and the secrets! O Obeyed One! O Most Knowing! O Allah! O Allah! O Allah! O Vanquisher of the parties against Muhammad (S)! O Outwitter of Pharaoh for Moses! O Savior of Jesus from the hands of the unjust! O, Deliverer of the people of Noah from drowning! O, Compassionate for the tears of Ya‘qub! O Remover of the Difficulties of Job! O Savior of Jonah from the darkness! O Doer of every good! O Guider to every good! O Shower of every good! O Commander to every good! O Creator of the good! O Good-doer! You are Allah. I want from You what you know I want, and You are Omniscient of all that is hidden. I ask you to bless Muhammad and his descendants.’

Then ask your need, both of you. It will be answered, God willing.”

2. (A part of the psalm “Mashlul”  http://alhassanain.org/english/?com=book&id=928&page=64is: |

http://www.duas.org/mashlool.htm |https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjeu-jioK7XAhWDHxoKHSRSAqIQtwIISTAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3hXD5YVEcJo&usg=AOvVaw0WLvRxj2ysGA126ABK-kz_ |http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm-jzXqsS1M) “O He who returned Joseph to Ya‘qub! O He who removed the harm from Job! O He who forgave the sin of David! O He who raised Jesus the son of Mary and saved him from the hands of the Jews! O He who answered the calling of Yunus in the darkness! O He who chose Moses by the Words! …”

يَا رَافِعَ عِيسَىٰ بْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَمُنجِيهِ مِنْ ايْدِي ٱلْيَهُودِ

 r¡fi`a `¢s¡ ibni maryama wa munjiyah£ min a y d¢ alyah£di

O He Who caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to ascend and delivered him from the hands of the Jews!

Jesus through Shiite Narrations

 

AUTHOR(S): 

Categorized collection of hadith (narrations) on Prophet Jesus (a) from the Shia books of Hadith. Topics include: His childhood, characteristics, the disciples, children of Israel, the Gospel, supplications to God among others.

TRANSLATOR(S): 
JESUS%20THROUGH%20SHIITE%20NARRATIONS%20
Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shiite-narrations-mahdi-muntazir-qaim/preface

In the glorious Qur’an, in a passage describing the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus (‘a) is described as a Word from God:

O Mary! Verily Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, prominent in this world and in the Hereafter of those near [to God]. (3:44)

The context in which this ayah was revealed was one of interreligious encounter. It is said that the Christians of Najran sent a delegation to the Prophet of Islam (S) at Mecca to question him about the teachings of Islam concerning Jesus (‘a), and that God revealed the above and other ayat of Surah Al-i ‘Imran in response. The response is not merely a denial of Christian teachings, although the divinity of Christ is clearly rejected, but an affirmation of much believed by Christians, as well, even the designation of Christ as logos:

O People of the Book! Do not transgress in your religion, and do not say of Allah but the Truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him. (4:171)

So, in addition to being called the Word of God, Jesus (‘a) is also called the Spirit of God, and in some of the narrations reported in the Shi‘i tradition, this title is used.

Of course, the interpretation of the logos in Christian theology differs markedly from the interpretation of the kalimah by Muslim scholars. For the Christian, according to the Gospel of John, the Word was God and the Word became flesh. For the Muslim, on the other hand, the Word is creature, even while it is the creative principle, for it is in God’s utterance of the word “Be!” that creation takes place.

To call Christ the Word of Allah is not to deify him, but to verify his status as prophet. Because of his high status as prophet, Jesus (‘a) becomes a complete manifestation of God, one who conveys the message of God, one who can speak on behalf of God, and thus, the Word of God.

Jesus (‘a) becomes the Word of God not because of an incarnation whereby his flesh becomes divine, but because his spirit is refined to such an extent that it becomes a mirror whereby divinity comes to be known. The temple is holy not because of any inherent sanctity in the structure, but because it is the place of the worship of God.

The differences between Islamic and Christian thinking about Jesus (‘a) are as important as they are subtle. Both accept the virgin birth, although it is ironic that a growing number of liberal Christians have come to have doubts about this miracle while Muslims remain steadfast! Among the other miracles attributed to Jesus (‘a) in the Glorious Qur’an are the revival of the dead and the creation of a bird from clay, but all of the miracles performed by Jesus (‘a) are expressly by the permission of Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×