Jump to content
SoRoUsH

Do we know who volunteered to be crucified?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Arminmo said:

It’s not fact of history, it was an imaginary scene that those people saw.

I dont know why it shows that I quoted that, I didnt write that. 

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arminmo said:

It’s not fact of history, it was an imaginary scene that those people saw.

To be fair, it's almost a consensus, among historians, Christian and non-Christians (Except Muslims) that Jesus was crucified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

To be fair, it's almost a consensus, among historians, Christian

Yeah! The same general agreement that those unknown writers (gospels) said about Jesus being son of god and god, to be so-called “fair”!

Edited by Arminmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arminmo said:

Yeah ! the same general agreement that says Jesus is god and Jesus is son of god also, to be so-called “fair”!

Actually not at all. 

Jesus being God, is a Christian, theological position. Historians do not and cannot make such claim. 

However, whether a man, named Jesus, was crucified or not is a historical matter. And most, almost all, historians agree that Jesus was crucified and died. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Salam and thank you. 

This is a bit astonishing. 

When it comes to the details of the events surrounding Jesus's supposed crucifixion, the information seems to be scarce. 

Yet, this event is the most important event in Christianity, without which, Christianity wouldn't be as it is today. 

So, in dialogue with Christians, we're left looking dogmatic, when it comes to denying Jesus's crucifixion. We have no strong alternative theory. Even this story of the lookalike isn't found in acceptable traditions. 

Hold on.

In the quran our position is clear. Prophet Jesus AS was not crucified. 

Obviously this doesn't fit with those that call them selves Christians today. However their views are not a reference point for what is acceptable or not.

Its important to note that the Bible we have today is not claimed to be written by Jesus by the Christians. It is not the Injel of the Quran. It is simply what some companions and others of Jesus heard. If you ask a Christian if Jesus narrated the bible, or organised it, or even wrote or said one letter of it, the will say no. 100% of the content is either from the disciples or unknown authors. The compilers of the Bible also selected which gospels to accept and reject, therefore a circular logic of what their viewpoint actually is. Hence the rejection of the gospel of barnabus etc.

Some of the Bible of today may reflect the genuine message that Prophet Jesus AS, and you can tell when you read it, but there is a lot of contradictory content and some content that is just difficult to accept as a rational person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kirtc said:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain

4:157

Many translations of the Quran are full of these interpolations in brackets where the Quran is unclear. Interpolations can differ quite a lot, possible depending on the view of the translaters religious school. I prefer those without these brackets. You can easily find 10 different versions of 4;157, please take a look and compare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, andres said:

Many translations of the Quran are full of these interpolations in brackets where the Quran is unclear. Interpolations can differ quite a lot, possible depending on the view of the translaters religious school. I prefer those without these brackets. You can easily find 10 different versions of 4;157, please take a look and compare. 

they all mean the same thing... in arabic it is clear. even if you remove the bracketed words or changed them, the rest show the clear meaning of the aya. 

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arminmo said:

Jews were the master mind behind the plan, and Romans executed the plan, if the pronoun is referring to either of them, nothing goes wrong.

That Jesus was crucified by the Romans is an historical fact. That he was resurected from the dead and that he was not crucified are two different religious beliefs. The Quran does not actually say there was a crucifixion. Or did I miss it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, andres said:

That Jesus was crucified by the Romans is an historical fact. That he was resurected from the dead and that he was not crucified are two different religious beliefs. The Quran does not actually say there was a crucifixion. Or did I miss it? 

They misunderstood that curicified him they curicify someone that was looks like him but they think that curificed him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kirtc said:

they all mean the same thing..  the words in brackets dont change the meaning of the aya.. they are only translation suggestions.. in arabic it is clear. even if you remove the bracketed words or changed them, the rest show the clear meaning of the aya. 

Most Muslims believe as you, but some Muslims read the text so that the crucifixion was an illusion that never happened. Others believe the crucifixion happened but Jesus survived. All  three seem like possible interpretations to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They misunderstood that curicified him they curicify someone that was looks like him but they think that curificed him

Or it was all an illusion. None of these two are very credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, andres said:

Others believe the crucifixion happened but Jesus survived. 

Others believes are illusion:

nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arminmo said:
37 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

Or it was all an illusion. None of these two are very credible.

If you think rationally you see in many stories from past to now when somebody wants to misguide people this trick as a modern example in Sherlock Holmes movie (tides of darkness) The with man uses his twin to misguide all people that he was executed but his twin brother was executed & he ran away from prison to start his plan so it is not impossible to God  to that same trick if a man can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Arminmo said:

Others believes are illusion:

nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them

 

DR. GHALI

And for their saying, "Surely we killed the Masih, Isa son of Maryam, (The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary) the Messenger of Allah." And in no way did they kill him, and in no way did they crucify him, but a resemblance of him was presented to them (i.e. the matter was made obscure for them through mutual resemblance). And surely the ones who differed about him are indeed in doubt about him. (Or: it, "that") In no way do they have any knowledge about him except the close following of surmise, and in no way did they kill him of a certainty.

PICKTHALL

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

SHAKIR

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

KNUT BERNSTRÖM

och för deras ord: "Vi har dödat Kristus Jesus, Marias son, [som påstod sig vara] Guds sändebud!" Men de dödade honom inte och inte heller korsfäste de honom, fastän det för dem tedde sig så. De som är av annan mening är inte säkra på sin sak; de har ingen [verklig] kunskap om detta utan stöder sig på antaganden. Det är med visshet så att de inte dödade honom.

TRANSLITERATION

Waqawlihim inna qatalnaalmaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahiwama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakinshubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafeeshakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAaaththanni wama qataloohu yaqeena

ABDUL HALEEM

and said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him-

MUHSIN KHAN

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]:

YUSUF ALI

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:-

ABUL ALA MAUDUDI(WITH TAFSIR)

(4:157) and their saying: 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary', the Messenger of Allah1 - whereas2 in fact they had neither slain him nor crucified him but the matter was made dubious to them3 - and those who differed about it too were in a state of doubt! They have no definite knowledge of it, but merely follow conjecture;4 and they surely slew him not,

MUFTI TAQI USMANI

and for their saying, “We have certainly killed the MasīH ‘Īsā the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah”, while in fact they did neither kill him, nor crucify him, but they were deluded by resemblance.Those who disputed in this matter are certainly in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but they follow whims. It is absolutely certain that they did not kill him,

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN

and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

However, whether a man, named Jesus, was crucified or not is a historical matter. And most, almost all, historians agree that Jesus was crucified and died. 

 

3 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

To be fair, it's almost a consensus, among historians, Christian and non-Christians (Except Muslims) that Jesus was crucified. 

And [for] their saying, "Surely, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [rather] it was made to appear that way to them. And surely, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (4:157)

4:157 delineates several key points: (1) The claim that Jesus was killed, (2) Jesus was neither murdered nor killed by crucifixion, (3) It was made to appear that he was crucified, (4) Those who disagree with this are in doubt, and follow dubious assumptions. We know for certain that the enemies of Jesus claimed to have crucified him, and we know for certain that the Pauline Christians (largely Greco-Roman peoples) accepted this claim. In point #3, the Quran is not denying the historicity of this event, but it is saying God made it appear that they (Jesus' enemies) killed Jesus. This story fits into the greater Quranic prophetic dialectic; that just as God delivered His prophets, He would deliver Muhammad (s).

There are different versions of how point #3 was executed in our literature. Now, just because the Pauline Church believed that Jesus was killed by crucifixion, it does not mean that he actually was, nor is their claim a reflection of "early Christianity". The Pauline claim to Jesus is actually quite weak historically, as Paul never met Jesus - his authority was based on visions he would receive of Jesus years (or decades) after the crucifixion event. He regularly clashed with the Apostolic Church, berating the Galatians for accepting the apostolic "Jesus and gospel" as opposed to his own; then again in Acts over the apostolic insistence on following the Law. Paul himself was a mercenary for Rome who killed and persecuted Christians before his conversion. The New Testament consists mostly of Paul's writings, and the Gospels (at least 3/4, and probably all 4) were Greek texts that followed the Pauline tradition.

To really understand the early Christian community, one must study the apostles of Jesus, particularly James the Just and his successors. In their texts, there is no mention of Jesus being crucified, and there is an insistence on following the Law (i.e. no atonement). This community clashed with the Pauline Church, and you see these clashes in Galatians, Acts, and Jude. This community was then persecuted by the Pauline Christians, the Romans, and the Jews, until their community was exiled in 132-134 CE. After this point, their teachings influenced a few other groups, such as the Ebionites, the Elchasaites, and the Gnostics. The second century Gnostics wrote of Jesus being substituted on the cross, and the other groups don't write or comment on the crucifixion, but the Ebionites were staunch opponents of Paul. I wrote a bit more on this topic here: https://www.scribd.com/document/91704016/The-Jewish-Christian-Anomaly

This raises some serious questions on the crucifixion, which is the crux (pun probably intended) of Pauline theology, but either ignored completely or doubted by the apostolic community. So this is why I then looked into the Biblical account of the crucifixion, which ends up muddling matters even further (hence point #4).

I can go on and on, but the point here is that the Quran is not outright denying some certain event, it is saying that the event happened in way that deceived Jesus' enemies. From what we can clearly see, the Pauline version of the event is very, very problematic. Even from a secular point of view, it can be reasonably assumed that they simply crucified the wrong guy, or that Jesus did not die on the cross and simply left his tomb - but even then, the apostles of Jesus seemed to have not cared about the event, which should say something. The Imams of Ahl al-Bayt have condemned Paul and praised the apostles, and so it is the Shia position that the apostles were believers and that Paul was a liar. We now know that there were stark differences between the Jamesian and Pauline communities, and that the Jamesian community, who were the true disciples of the historical Jesus, resembled Islam more than they resembled Christianity, in that (1) they believed Jesus was a messiah, but not divine (2) they were purely monotheistic, and did not accept a trinity, (3) they believed in following the Law, daily prayers, fasting, etc. (4) they accepted converts from non-Jewish converts and sought to preach to non-Jews, (5) they had something like an "imam" at all times whom they obeyed (Bishop of the Jerusalem Church).

To give a parallel example, take the JFK assassination. The official story is "JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone". When this claim is investigated, there are serious inconsistencies, and aspects of the story that are coincidental, improbable, and flat out impossible. The claim is followed by a series of counter-claims and counter-theories. If the Mahdi were to come now and say "Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK, but it was made to appear that way", I would see no problem with that statement, and I would even think that the statement would be more accurate than the official story. If the Mahdi had no access to these counter-claims and counter-theories, and no formal education of the official story, and made such a statement, it would be remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

nor crucified him,

Andres in all of your translations these words existed, am I right?

so you proved the point, he wasn’t crucified. 

Thats why I’m saying what other say is illusion.don't you get it?

 

Edited by Arminmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

To really understand the early Christian community, one must study the apostles of Jesus, particularly James the Just and his successors. In their texts, there is no mention of Jesus being crucified, and there is an insistence on following the Law (i.e. no atonement). This community clashed with the Pauline Church, and you see these clashes in Galatians, Acts, and Jude. 

Wich texts of James the Just are you refering to?

How do they clash with Galatians, Acts and Jude when it comes to the crucifixion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arminmo said:

Andres in all of your translations these words existed, am I right?

so you proved the point, he wasn’t crucified. 

Thats why I’m saying what other say is illusion.don't you get it?

the illusion was in the person being crucified not the crucifiction itself. a crucifiction took place in real life, but God replaced Jesus with a man that was made to look like him. that is where the illusion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arminmo said:

Andres in all of your translations these words existed, am I right?

so you proved the point, he wasn’t crucified. 

Thats why I’m saying what other say is illusion.don't you get it?

Was according to the Quran Jesus crucifixion an illusion, or was a substitute crucified? Muslims differ on this. No Christian or historian believe any of these two options. 

My suggestion was that the Quran could also be read so that the Jews thought they had killed Jesus, but in this they were wrong because the Romans did this. I base this on the translations without interpolations. However I am aware there may be other suras I am not aware that clearly say Jesus was not crucified. The one we are discussing is not very informative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, andres said:

Was according to the Quran Jesus crucifixion an illusion, or was a substitute crucified?

He answered you on top of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kirtc said:

the illusion was in the person being crucified not the crucifiction itself. 

Not all muslims agree with you, and this is also not what the translations say. Except for the translations with interpolations both illusions are possible Are there no other places in the Quran that with no doubt whatsoever could settle the matter?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, andres said:

Not all muslims agree with you, and this is also not what the translations say. Except for the translations with interpolations both illusions are possible Are there no other places in the Quran that with no doubt whatsoever could settle the matter?.

صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ

 

I see a few translations above are misleading. to my best ability this translates to.. "nor did they crucify him but it appeared to them so"

so it shows that someone did get crucified and it appeared to be Jesus a.s but wasn't.

OP has the topic wrong in asking who volunteered.. no where does it mention he (who was crucified) was a volunteer lol, but I have heard it was Judas who took his place on the cross. 

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Qa'im

Firstly, I love your posts, and your writing style; very clear, organized, and coherent. 

We're mostly on the same page regarding this matter. I have studied books regarding Jesus's family, and I've come to focus on James the Just. I'm pleased to know that you've reached a similar point in studying the story of Jesus. 

You stated our Ahlul Bayt (as) have condemned Paul. May I see acceptable traditions on this? I've searched in the past to see if they had said anything regarding James, but I couldn't find anything. 

One persisting concern is that God made it seem to, at least, some people, those in power and capable of spreading propaganda, that Jesus was crucified. Those people evil as they may have been, sincerely, believed they crucified and killed Jesus. They, in turn, spread the information regarding what seemed to happen to Jesus. They didn't doubt, since God made it seem that way to them. Consequently, most historians, secular or not, accept the crucifixion of Jesus. Yes, there are inconsistencies in the story, but the essence of the story that Jesus was crucified and died is accepted by most, if not all historians. 

We have strong critics of the Bible such as Bart Ehrman, who deny and question almost everything in the Bible, except the fact that Jesus was crucified and died. I have read many books on Christianity and not one of them rejected this historical event. 

So, we can agree that they were and are misled, but we should understand that it's merely impossible to question the fact of this event, not the details, from a non-islamic perspective. A non-muslim historian or researcher, who doesn't rely on Islamic texts for his/her research (and why would he/she?) would have no reason to question the occurring of Jesus's crucifixion and death. 

So, when we agree that "God made it seem that way," how can we expect to effectively argue against it without bringing the Islamic alternative story? In other words, we start from a position of faith (or dogma in this case), trying to convince others that all historical books and non-muslims have got it wrong, because it says so in the Qur'an. 

Do you see the challenge? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×