Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
haideriam

1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Cr

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A guy who can reanimate the dead, make figurines and animate them, cure the blindness of those born without sight, cure all diseases, and he can be caught and crucified by mortal men? Allegedly the "son of the Creator (of everything)".

 

Never sounded quite logical anyway to be entirely honest.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunnis mock us for saying our Imams couldn't prevent their own deaths. You can throw this same kind of argument against Imam Husayn (as). The point of Christianity is that Jesus WILLINGLY went to his mortal death.

 

The whole idea that Jesus didn't need to die because God saves his prophets or servants from calamity is a purely Sunni argument that has no foundations in Shi'ite thought. Shi'ism has no moral or philosophical qualm with the idea of a prophet being martyred for the sake of truth or exposing his enemies. It's simply a question of whether it happened and whether if it did happen, if it means what Christians think it means.

 

THIS!

 

Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of us using arguments to defend certain aspects of our beliefs in a way that if the same reasoning were to be applied to other beliefs - or if we were to even examine how we refute other beliefs - we'd see huge contradictions and inconsistencies. I've even thought of creating a series of thread on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Salam/Shalom/Peace Haideriam,

 

The Gospel of Barnabas is considered a forgery, written after Muhammad and not before Muhammad. It was probably written by a Muslim convert who did not realize that the Qur'an says that Jesus is the Messiah = Christ. I boldened some in the quotes below.

 

For example, in the "Gospel of Barnabas" it says:

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.'

http://barnabas.net/index.php/chapters/435-42-i-am-not-the-messiah

 

The Qur'an however states:

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

- Qur'an 3:45 (Yusuf Ali)

 

The Gospel of Barnabas also draws the conclusion that Muhammad is the Messiah/Christ, yet Muhammad never claimed to be the Messiah/Christ. http://barnabas.net/index.php/chapters/495-97-muhammad-is-his-blessed-name

 

Ironically, the Gospel of Barnabas copies sections of the authentic Gospel (Good News) accounts and then changes them. For example:

 

Jesus answered: 'The miracles which God worketh by my hands show that I speak that which God willeth; nor indeed do I make myself to be accounted as him of whom ye speak. For I am not worthy to unloose the ties of the hosen or the ratchets of the shoes of the messenger of God whom ye call 'Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words of truth, so that his faith shall have no end.' - http://barnabas.net/index.php/chapters/435-42-i-am-not-the-messiah

 

Please compare the allegations of the "Gospel of Barnabas" to what John the Baptist said about Jesus Christ:

 

“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

 

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

 

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented.

 

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

- Matthew 3:11-17 (NIV)

 

Anyways,  the "Gospel of Barnabas" is really not written by Barnabas, the friend of Saul/Paul, but rather a person after Muhammad.

 

Peace and God bless you

A guy who can reanimate the dead, make figurines and animate them, cure the blindness of those born without sight, cure all diseases, and he can be caught and crucified by mortal men? Allegedly the "son of the Creator (of everything)".

 

Never sounded quite logical anyway to be entirely honest.

 

Salam/Shalom/Peace Darth Vader,

 

Animal sacrifices have never sounded logical to me, yet God commanded the Children of Israel to offer animal sacrifices (See Leviticus in the Torah.) God obviously never asked for my opinion about the whole animal sacrifice thing. However, the animals were merely a symbol of the Ultimate Sacrifice that God Himself would give to save humanity from their transgressions.

 

Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) is the Lamb God provided (Genesis 22:8; John 1:29) and fulfills Isaiah 53 through his death:

(I boldened some in the passage below.)

 

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

 

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

 

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

 

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

 

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

 

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

- Isaiah 54:5-12    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Isaiah53.html

 

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam/Shalom/Peace Saintly_Jinn,

 

 

This story is old. They supposedly found this "Bible" a year or two ago and started saying it was a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas or something and said Jesus (as) wasn't crucified and "the Vatican wants to see it." But the only source for it was a Turkish newspaper and as of late there has been absolutely no news of any examination of its contents or any attempt to carbon date it.

 

It's more than likely a hoax.

 

 

Yep.

 

since Imam Hussayn is greater than Jesus.

 

 

100% disagree
 

 

The point of Christianity is that Jesus WILLINGLY went to his mortal death.

 

 

Well, Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) begged the Father to let the "cup" pass from him, but he was and always is 100% willing to obey the Father. (I boldened some in the verses below and put Jesus' words in red.)

 

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, Sit here while I go over there and pray. He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” - Matthew 26:36-39 (NIV)

 

The whole idea that Jesus didn't need to die because God saves his prophets or servants from calamity is a purely Sunni argument that has no foundations in Shi'ite thought where suffering and defeat is seen as the norm for the people of God. Where Sunnism is triumphalistic and finds validation in the success of the "true message" the Shi'a have always historically found validation in their marginalization and persecution. Shi'ism has no moral or philosophical qualm with the idea of a prophet being martyred for the sake of truth or exposing his enemies so it really doesn't matter if a prophet like Jesus died or not if that was God's will or if God saw fit to allow it for His purposes. It's simply a question of whether it happened, if it didn't happen what it all means and whether if it did happen, if it means what Christians think it means.

 

 

Most of my Muslim friends are Sunni, and yes they don't think God would allow Jesus to die, but rather that God made people think that Jesus had died... Thanks for explaining the difference between Sunni Muslim and Shia Muslim views on this.
 

 

Also, the reason I think many Christians aren't convinced by Islamic claims that Jesus didn't die is because many Muslims are unable to explain why not in a way that is rationally acceptable to most people, let alone most historians who take it as a given he was crucified.

 

 

As a Christian, the main reason why I don't accept Islamic claims rejecting the crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) is because they contradict Isaiah 53 and other prophecies he fulfills. Islamic claims also contradicts Yeshua's teachings and actions, and the testimonies of Yeshua's followers who walked and talked with him.

 

So, Christians not being "convinced" is not personal against any Muslims at all and has nothing to do with their ability to convince me of anything, but rather is due to the steadfast faith in God and in His Written Word centuries before Muhammad dictated or wrote? the words of the Qur'an. 

 

 

Hoax stories like this make Muslims look desperate and like they're grasping at straws

 

 

True.

 

 

and it's really quite irritating when I see them spread around on this site and others without any critical evaluation of their claims.

 

 

Thanks for investigating the claims.

 

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story is old. They supposedly found this "Bible" a year or two ago and started saying it was a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas or something and said Jesus (as) wasn't crucified and "the Vatican wants to see it." But the only source for it was a Turkish newspaper and as of late there has been absolutely no news of any examination of its contents or any attempt to carbon date it.

 

It's more than likely a hoax.

 

 

 

The Sunnis mock us for saying our Imams couldn't prevent their own deaths. You can throw this same kind of argument against Imam Husayn (as) since Imam Hussayn is greater than Jesus. The point of Christianity is that Jesus WILLINGLY went to his mortal death.

 

The whole idea that Jesus didn't need to die because God saves his prophets or servants from calamity is a purely Sunni argument that has no foundations in Shi'ite thought where suffering and defeat is seen as the norm for the people of God. Where Sunnism is triumphalistic and finds validation in the success of the "true message" the Shi'a have always historically found validation in their marginalization and persecution. Shi'ism has no moral or philosophical qualm with the idea of a prophet being martyred for the sake of truth or exposing his enemies so it really doesn't matter if a prophet like Jesus died or not if that was God's will or if God saw fit to allow it for His purposes. It's simply a question of whether it happened, if it didn't happen what it all means and whether if it did happen, if it means what Christians think it means.

 

Also, the reason I think many Christians aren't convinced by Islamic claims that Jesus didn't die is because many Muslims are unable to explain why not in a way that is rationally acceptable to most people, let alone most historians who take it as a given he was crucified. Hoax stories like this make Muslims look desperate and like they're grasping at straws and it's really quite irritating when I see them spread around on this site and others without any critical evaluation of their claims.

Interesting,

What do you think is the best explanation to defend the Islamic narration of denying crucifixion ? I couldn't find any that maybe plausible to a Christian and fits with their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is reported that Abu ‘Abd Allah (‘a) said, “… as for the occultation of Jesus, the Jews and the Christians are agreed that he was killed, so Allah, the Mighty and Magnificent, belied them by His saying,

They did not kill nor crucify him, but it appeared to them so (4:157).

 

 

 

It is reported that Al-Ridha’ (‘a) said, “When the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, he called upon Allah by our truth, then He saved him from being murdered and raised him."

 

 

 

[shakir 4:157] 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.

 

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:157]

The Jews boast and brag that they had slain Isa, but neither they slew him nor they crucified him. Allah raised him unto Himself. For details please refer to the commentary of Ali Imran: 55, which clearly expose the myth of crucifixion and resurrection of Isa.

 

Wama salabuhu (nor they crucified him) has been misinterpreted by the Ahmadi commentators. They say: "The words of the Quran do not deny the fact that Jesus was nailed to the cross and that he was wounded but did not die; and that he was taken away by a faithful disciple who put him in an open grave from where he escaped unnoticed; because he had prayed throughout the night before his arrest to be saved from the accursed death; and again reminded his Lord on the cross by saying: 'O Lord, my God, why has Thou forsaken me?"

 

The commentary of Ali Imran: 55 also deals with the conjectures of the Ahmadi commentators. They rely on the book corrupted by the Christian church and do not accept the clear words of the Quran (nor they crucified him).

 

As has been proved, on the authority of Christian books, in the commentary of Ali Imran: 55, it was another man who actually suffered the agony of crucifixion; and as recorded in the 80th psalm and in Daniel's vision Isa was raised to heaven.

 

Isa was ruhullah (spirit of Allah), therefore, he was not forsaken. A man forsaken by Allah cannot be His prophet.

 

 

I'm sticking to the fact that he was not crucified or killed. Thank you. -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who exagerrate the position of Imam Hussain a.s and those who exagerrate the position of the holy prophet of God, Isa pbuh (jesus) are swimming in similar waters. I'm not sure either will appreciate the exagerration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting,

What do you think is the best explanation to defend the Islamic narration of denying crucifixion ? I couldn't find any that maybe plausible to a Christian and fits with their beliefs.

 

First of all, Muslims who don't believe Jesus was crucified need to really ask themselves why they believe so. I think most of the Muslims who believe this only really believe it because it's what they've always been told is the Islamic view or what the Qur'an says.

 

Most modern historians generally accept that Jesus was crucified and for many this event is the most solid evidence of Jesus own historicity. Most Muslims even don't disagree that the event at least appeared to have happened in history, but that's really where the problem is.

 

"Judas was made to look like Jesus"

"one of the apostles was made to look like Jesus"

"Jesus only sllipped into a coma,"

 

These are ideas that require either a strong faith in miraculous events that are beyond the conventional human understanding or are ad hoc arguments designed with the express purpose of justifying the words of the Qur'an which were taken as truth even before the argument started. So there's a problem there because none of the miraculous explanations would sit well with most Christians who believe the death and resurrection of Christ is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and for many modern historians, miracles aren't taken seriously. And the more mundane explanations like the swoon hypothesis wouldn't really serve to prove the Islamic revelation even if they appealed to modern historians and are only relied on by Muslims because they prevent the Qur'an from being falsified, not because it makes sense according to any specific Islamic religious principle. Many Christians find hope in the story of Christ's death on the cross in the same way many Shi'a Muslims find hope and comfort in the story of Karbala and both religions re-enact these dramatic events with much pageantry. For most Christians, the Muslim explanations that Jesus didn't die don't respond to them emotionally or spiritually anymore anymore than the idea that Imam Hussayn didn't really die in karbala as some of the Ghulat suggested is really something most Shi'a are willing to emotionally, let alone rationally, accept. Christians don't necessarily believe that the crucifixion happened simply because the Bible says it did, they believe it happened because it had to happen just as many of us would reject any suggestion Imam Husayn's death wasn't necessary.

 

There's also a strong reliance by Muslims on apocryphal texts whose authenticity is not only questionable but express radically different worldviews.

 

And the Qur'an isn't even explicit on this issue. Even since the earliest Islamic period, many Muslims believed that the Qur'anic verses saying Jesus "wasn't killed" did not explicitly contradict the Biblical narrative, most of such groups throughout history have been Sufis or Shi'ites. The Nizaris believe Jesus was crucified and feel it is well in line with the Qur'an's more esoteric meaning since for them the meaning of "they slew him not (for certain) nor did they crucify him" just means that they thought they killed/crucified him when all they only damaged his body, not his spirit, and "don't say those who die on the way of Allah that they are dead"

 

For the record, just to cut this short, I do currently believe that Jesus wasn't crucified, but I don't accept that on the basis of the written words of the Qur'an alone, which I feel are ambiguous by themselves, and I don't believe that if Jesus was crucified that this would necessarily falsify the Qur'an at all because it wouldn't have to contradict any of the principles expressed in the Qur'an alone. So I approach the issue from a different angle where it's not the Qur'an I'm trying to prove by proving Jesus wasn't killed but a particular interpretative lens through which I view the Qur'an that I'm trying to prove, one which is based on my understanding of the traditions of Ahlul Bayt as a Shi'a Muslim and my knowledge of Biblical lore and Jewish-Christian tradition as a former Christian and as a student.

 

The Qur'an is ambiguous on the matter by itself, and so we are forced in these circumstances to rely almost solely on the hadith and our own rational assumptions. The veracity of these hadith and assumptions depends on the authority of their narrators as well as the consistency of their logic in the wider context of the Islamic revelation as a whole. It is not an issue of whether the Qur'an is false in my opinion. Unless we understand what the Qur'an and sermons of Ahlul Bayt are telling us about what it means to be human and what it means to serve God, we can never be expected to put Jesus' survival in a proper context that feels the least bit consistent and logical to a Christian mind.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sticking to the fact that he was not crucified or killed. Thank you. -_-

 

But do you even know why he wasn't crucified or killed or are you just accepting things blindly? Here's the average argument I see between a Christian and a Muslim on this matter:

 

Christian: "Jesus was crucified so he could pay the penalty of our sins and offer everyone a chance for salvation and this all happened according the law and words of the prophets."

 

Muslim: "There are two verses in the Bible which contradict each other, which means it can't be relied on for anything at all. We should toss it in the trash and pay it no mind. Jesus didn't die because the Qur'an says he didn't die and if Jesus did die that means the Qur'an is wrong but the Qur'an can't be wrong so Jesus didn't die!  YOU BETTER HABEEB IT. "

 

The point isn't simply whether Jesus did or didn't die, but why, I think. Like I said, Christians don't believe Jesus died simply as a matter of historical accident, they believe he died for a specific reason and that he died for them out of pure love. The idea that he didn't die, for them, suggests something extremely heinous because as they see it, the human condition requires Jesus to have died as a kind of sacrificial lamb. We believe something very similar with Imam Hussayn (as) dying for the sins of the Muslim ummah. So we Shi'a can't say that Jesus was spared death because "God doesn't suffer his servants to be humiliated by the unbeleivers" The Imams were more humiliated than anyone.

 

If we're goint to insist that Jesus didn't die, we can't just expect Christians to take the Qur'an or some random hadith's word for it, it has to have more of an argument going for it and Muslims need to re-evaluate some of their older arguments, especially us Shi'a who have a bad habit of just bandwagoning Sunni arguments even they clearly clash with our own views.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Nizaris believe Jesus was crucified and feel it is well in line with the Qur'an's more esoteric meaning since for them the meaning of "they slew him not (for certain) nor did they crucify him" just means that they thought they killed/crucified him when all they only damaged his body, not his spirit, and "don't say those who die on the way of Allah that they are dead"

 

I don't understand you theological position. In your debates on tawasul you seem to advocate for the twelver orthodoxy, and now you seem to be borrowing ideas from other Muslim sects like a maverick. Not that it bothers me but where do you stand exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand you theological position. In your debates on tawasul you seem to advocate for the twelver orthodoxy, and now you seem to be borrowing ideas from other Muslim sects like a maverick. Not that it bothers me but where do you stand exactly?

 

I'm not borrowing ideas from anyone, I was saying that the verses in the Qur'an such as 4:157, in light of other verses, can also be read in different ways and always have. I think Muslims need to realize that the Qur'an's authenticity doesn't rest on the question of whether Jesus was crucified, because the verse I mentioned can be interpreted in such a way that confirms, at least in part, the Biblical narrative and is logically consistent with the language and themes of the Qur'an itself.

 

I believe that Jesus wasn't crucified, but I believe so based on the Twelver Shi'a traditions, not just the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. I think it needs to be pointed out that most Muslims, including most Shi'a Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified based more on the extra-religious traditions which in turn have shaped their cultural beliefs and so they take it for granted "this is what the Qur'an means" even though it doesn't explicitly say what it they think it says, it's just how they interpret it. If we understand that taken by itself, the Qur'an could mean any number of things by saying "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so (or it's likeness appeared so) to them," one of which is a more esoteric or philosophical understanding of the crucifixion that interprets it as meaning they slew the body of Jesus but not his spirit, then we realize that the nature of the argument is a bit more complex than "is the Bible right and the Qur'an wrong," because one can make a relatively reasonable argument that the Qur'an doesn't contradict the Bible in this regard.

 

As I said, I believe that Christ wasn't crucified, but I accept that it is mostly on the basis of narrations and teachings from the Imams which I believe illuminate the proper meaning of Qur'anic verses which might otherwise have any number of interpretations. If anything what I was trying to stress is just how much we depend on things outside the Qur'an to better understand it, whether it's traditions or rational or theological ideas we accept as truth before even picking up the book. So I think discussions on this issue of the crucifixion will go a lot smoother if we better understand why we believe what we do. I don't feel like many Twelver Shi'a have a firm grasp of why exactly Jesus is spared from death in the context of their own tradition and it's necessary I think to point out some things they may take it for granted might be understood differently by others, including other Muslims.

 

Rather than just hopping on the train of other Muslim arguments or taking purely negative approach to the Christian arguments, I think it's necessary to have a deeper understanding of what Jesus' ascension means in the context of the Shi'ite understanding of history, prophethood, eschatology and martyrdom in order to present a more intellectual argument that will be taken more seriously by Christian scholars who think Muslims are just pulling things from various hadith by demanding people accept them without question as to their intellectual basis. If Jesus was spared death, I don't believe it was something arbitrary, it happened for a purpose and how we explain this purpose needs to make sense within our own worldview as Twelver Shi'a. If it's impossible to do so, then we may need to re-examine our positions.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saintly, you're entitled to your opinions, but I think the ideas you're espousing here are more in-line with the Ismaili thought than with the Twelver whose thoughts on this topic are better represented by the Sunni thought.


 


The Sunnis do indeed place a greater emphasis on the apparent meaning of scripture but this does not necessarily imply a rejection of the esoteric approach so long as it is consistent with the apparent text. This, as well as hadiths, is the basis for their belief in the ascension of Jesus and the denial of his crucifixion.


 


The rational justification for this doctrine goes something along the lines that it is incumbent on God (or rather that God has taken the burden) to protect His messengers until they fulfil their message. This only applies to messengers with an additional revelation or insight such as Moses and Jesus; not prophets who were merely sent as preachers and warners. Since Jesus' role as the messiah was not fulfilled, it makes sense to believe his ascension and second return to fulfil his messianic role. This seems consonant with the Twelver thoughts on Imamite and the occultation of the Mahdi who was not killed either.


 


I really have to go now but I hope my point is clear. I apologize for any typos...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Saintly, you're entitled to your opinions, but I think the ideas you're espousing here are more in-line with the Ismaili thought than with the Twelver whose thoughts on this topic are better represented by the Sunni thought.

 

Except the Ismailis believe Jesus was crucified based on their esoteric approach to the Qur'an while I don't so I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion about myself. My argument was simply that the Qur'anic verses by themselves can be ambiguous or easily twisted to mean something else and given the nature of the Qur'an as a book of esoteric and exoteric meanings, some of which are not always easy to make it for the average person by his or herself, it is necessary to rely on the Imam to elucidate these things. As I said, my intention was to emphasize how much we need to to rely on the Imams to tell us what the Qur'an actually means. In this respect, both we and the Ismailis are united, but for me, being a Twelver, I rely on the Twelver traditions which say Jesus was not crucified while the Ismailis rely on their own intellectual traditions which argue that he was. All I said was the potential for people to walk away with multiple contradicting interpretations exists within verse 4:157 and I believe has made it so intentionally, what "breaks the tie" between these interpretations comes from outside the Qur'an, namely from the person of the Imam who is the treasurer of God's mysteries (as). My view is that without the Imams, people will inevitably

 

The Sunnis do indeed place a greater emphasis on the apparent meaning of scripture but this does not necessarily imply a rejection of the esoteric approach so long as it is consistent with the apparent text. This, as well as hadiths, is the basis for their belief in the ascension of Jesus and the denial of his crucifixion.

 

I don't know where you think I suggested otherwise. Again, I think you misunderstood the argument I was making. I said nothing to the effect that there is no Sunni esoteric approach. Rather what I said was that the Sunni line of reasoning follows a different path and we as Twelvers shouldn't take the Sunni line of argument anymore than the Ismaili line of argument. Instead our line of argument must be a Twelver line of argument based principally on the traditions of the Twelve Imams and the guiding principles of Shi'ism in its generalities and Twelver Shi'ism in particular in order to articulate a consistent understanding of both the outer and inner reality of the events of Jesus' life and final moments on earth. If we may be permitted to rely on Sunni, Sufi or Ismaili arguments for our own purposes in this respect, that's fine, but we should still be able to know what makes our tradition unique in its approach to this issue. I don't think our tradition and the Sunni tradition understand things the same exact way that we can always rely on their arguments.

 

The rational justification for this doctrine goes something along the lines that it is incumbent on God (or rather that God has taken the burden) to protect His messengers until they fulfil their message. This only applies to messengers with an additional revelation or insight such as Moses and Jesus; not prophets who were merely sent as preachers and warners.

 

If I were to say that Jesus died and rose from the dead after giving the gospel and/or as a fulfillment of the final stage of the first part of his prophethood, I wouldn't really be contradicting this idea at all, really.  There is precedent for this in the example of Imam Hussayn (as) who is greater than Jesus and if anyone was worthy to die for "original sin" it was him and he did die as martyr so that he might intercede on the behalf of the fallen Muslim community and as a fulfillment of his own divine mission since the beginning. So if we say Jesus wasn't crucified and resurrected, the question of "why not?" lingers a bit more for the Shi'a mind than for the Sunni mind.

 

Since Jesus' role as the messiah was not fulfilled, it makes sense to believe his ascension and second return to fulfil his messianic role.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't say that to say Jesus was killed and rose from the dead contradicts this either since at the end of both stories (the death/resurrection story believed by Christians and the no death/no resurrection story believed by most Muslims) Jesus (as) still ascends to heaven to return at the Appointed Time to battle the forces of evil and fulfill his final role as the messiah. The Ismailis also share the same beliefs here: that Jesus died on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven to await the time he would return to fulfill his messianic role in accordance with Islamic prophecy, the only difference they have with the Christians here is that they downplay the signifiance of the crucifixion itself in the greater divine plan for salvation and deny the incarnation of God, like the vast majority of other Muslims do.

 

This seems consonant with the Twelver thoughts on Imamite and the occultation of the Mahdi who was not killed either.

 

I do believe that Jesus (as) is an archetype for Imam Mahdi (as) in addition to his messianic counterpart. However, what I have been trying to say this whole time is that there are very few real studies of Jesus as an archetype for the Twelve Imams, particularly the twelfth, and which put his ascension and sparing from death in the context of the deeper spiritual principles of Twelver religion. Instead, we often rely on parroting many of the same tired old Sunni arguments which  Meanwhile, minority groups like Ismailis and many Christian thinkers I feel offer much better arguments for their views, even though I disagree with them.

 

That's really the core of my argument:  nobody takes us, that is the Twelver Muslim community, seriously on this issue when we're just parroting the same sunni and wahabi arguments found everywhere on the internet which don't even take into account Jesus' intimate spiritual relationship with the Imams or when our scholars don't take the issue seriously enough to think that maybe arguing against crucifixion requires more than simply reciting a narration or pointing out a few flaws in the Bible, which even if we say it is flawed still has the added perk of antiquity for contemporary scholars which the Qur'an and hadith don't have. What we need is a uniquely Twelver Shi'a understanding of the events that takes into account its consistency with other schools of thought but which shows that the only way to reach the greatest and most proper understanding of Jesus' true nature and the real meaning of the events of his life is through the wisdom of Ahlul Bayt and the Twelve Imams in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be honest the book looks like a fake . The book pages are twisted and aged and yet the lettering is clear and not distorted.

 

I am not sure why anybody bothers to produce fakes like this to prove Islam. The Christian church fully acknowledge that the trinity concept was one of several different philosophies prevalent early on in Chistianity.

 

including adoptionism  , sabelliasm and the most well known Aranism

 

Trinity philosophy eventually won out because the Roman Empire eventually threw their weight behind the Trinity concept with the Emperor eventually becoming the Pope

 

Arianism actually was prevalent right up to the 7th/8th century particularly amongst the educated classes and the Germanic Kings

 

The modern day Unitarian Church which rejects the Trinity concept derives their inspiration from these early Arianism philosophies

 

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

 

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

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Muslims who don't believe Jesus was crucified need to really ask themselves why they believe so. I think most of the Muslims who believe this only really believe it because it's what they've always been told is the Islamic view or what the Qur'an says.

 

Most modern historians generally accept that Jesus was crucified and for many this event is the most solid evidence of Jesus own historicity. Most Muslims even don't disagree that the event at least appeared to have happened in history, but that's really where the problem is.

 

"Judas was made to look like Jesus"

"one of the apostles was made to look like Jesus"

"Jesus only sllipped into a coma,"

 

These are ideas that require either a strong faith in miraculous events that are beyond the conventional human understanding or are ad hoc arguments designed with the express purpose of justifying the words of the Qur'an which were taken as truth even before the argument started. So there's a problem there because none of the miraculous explanations would sit well with most Christians who believe the death and resurrection of Christ is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and for many modern historians, miracles aren't taken seriously. And the more mundane explanations like the swoon hypothesis wouldn't really serve to prove the Islamic revelation even if they appealed to modern historians and are only relied on by Muslims because they prevent the Qur'an from being falsified, not because it makes sense according to any specific Islamic religious principle. Many Christians find hope in the story of Christ's death on the cross in the same way many Shi'a Muslims find hope and comfort in the story of Karbala and both religions re-enact these dramatic events with much pageantry. For most Christians, the Muslim explanations that Jesus didn't die don't respond to them emotionally or spiritually anymore anymore than the idea that Imam Hussayn didn't really die in karbala as some of the Ghulat suggested is really something most Shi'a are willing to emotionally, let alone rationally, accept. Christians don't necessarily believe that the crucifixion happened simply because the Bible says it did, they believe it happened because it had to happen just as many of us would reject any suggestion Imam Husayn's death wasn't necessary.

 

There's also a strong reliance by Muslims on apocryphal texts whose authenticity is not only questionable but express radically different worldviews.

 

And the Qur'an isn't even explicit on this issue. Even since the earliest Islamic period, many Muslims believed that the Qur'anic verses saying Jesus "wasn't killed" did not explicitly contradict the Biblical narrative, most of such groups throughout history have been Sufis or Shi'ites. The Nizaris believe Jesus was crucified and feel it is well in line with the Qur'an's more esoteric meaning since for them the meaning of "they slew him not (for certain) nor did they crucify him" just means that they thought they killed/crucified him when all they only damaged his body, not his spirit, and "don't say those who die on the way of Allah that they are dead"

 

For the record, just to cut this short, I do currently believe that Jesus wasn't crucified, but I don't accept that on the basis of the written words of the Qur'an alone, which I feel are ambiguous by themselves, and I don't believe that if Jesus was crucified that this would necessarily falsify the Qur'an at all because it wouldn't have to contradict any of the principles expressed in the Qur'an alone. So I approach the issue from a different angle where it's not the Qur'an I'm trying to prove by proving Jesus wasn't killed but a particular interpretative lens through which I view the Qur'an that I'm trying to prove, one which is based on my understanding of the traditions of Ahlul Bayt as a Shi'a Muslim and my knowledge of Biblical lore and Jewish-Christian tradition as a former Christian and as a student.

 

The Qur'an is ambiguous on the matter by itself, and so we are forced in these circumstances to rely almost solely on the hadith and our own rational assumptions. The veracity of these hadith and assumptions depends on the authority of their narrators as well as the consistency of their logic in the wider context of the Islamic revelation as a whole. It is not an issue of whether the Qur'an is false in my opinion. Unless we understand what the Qur'an and sermons of Ahlul Bayt are telling us about what it means to be human and what it means to serve God, we can never be expected to put Jesus' survival in a proper context that feels the least bit consistent and logical to a Christian mind.

For me the Quran is not ambiguous regarding the denial of Jesus crucifixion but humans tend to disagree on greater levels of clear evidences. A good example is the Shia and sunni disagreement on how clear is the ghadeer. I'm not intending to start another (what's the color of this dress) dilemma.

Also , I differ with you in my Co side ration when studying the historicity of Jesus case. Even in Quran it is clear that if we are to take the sources of the Christians we will not get the truth that Quran is teaching us. Please , let me know about your thoughts on the else's that follows 3:55 or this verse

إني رافعك و مطهرك إلي

Also, what are your thoughts on the meaning of mutahhiruka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the Quran is not ambiguous regarding the denial of Jesus crucifixion but humans tend to disagree on greater levels of clear evidences. A good example is the Shia and sunni disagreement on how clear is the ghadeer. I'm not intending to start another (what's the color of this dress) dilemma.

 

Well, I think it's not ambiguous for you because you are convinced you understand the meaning. Like I said, I would also agree that the Qur'an is saying that Jesus wasn't literally crucified, but what I wanted to point out is that there are certainly ways to interpret parts like 4:157 in such a way that confirms the crucifixion at least outwardly by applying certain esoteric Shi'ite and Sufi principles to the question. This is what Ismailis, or at least the Nizaris, do and I think their argument is far from contrived, but fairly reasonable for what it's worth, at least compared to many of the other Muslim arguments I've heard

 

If you are interested in the Ismaili perspective, I recommend this video I posted here in this thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030379-an-ismaili-view-of-the-crucifixion-of-christ/

 

 I feel that in contrast to our Ismaili brothers and sisters and the Christians who both believe in the normal crucifixion narrative of a bodily death and resurrection and who both have very comprehensive arguments for why such an event happened not just historically but also why God allowed it to happen and for what purpose, many of our own arguments to the effect that Jesus wasn't crucified are lacking in these times.

 

I think part of the reason they are lacking is because many of us are more fixated on the idea that if we prove Jesus wasn't crucified, then the Qur'an is proven true, and so it becomes all a matter of trying to falsify the Bible while taking the Qur'an's meaning for granted. But when we realize that there can be a Muslim argument FOR the crucifixion which at least appears to not contradict the words of the Qur'an in their essence or any of the basic principles of Islam or Shi'a Islam, as we see in the case of the Ismaili argument for the crucifixion of at least Christ's body, then I think it becomes clear that we also have to prove that Jesus not dying was the most or only rational outcome and thus the only way to interpret 4:157 is in the way it say it does. And in at least in our case, the arguments we normally hear from the Sunnis I think are too shallow and ripe with inconsistencies since they don't have as clear a vision of Jesus' character or the Islamic religion to begin with.

 

I also think if we're going to try to prove the crucifixion didn't happen to Christians, this requires a more sympathetic approach to what drives Christians to continue to feel the need to believe the crucifixion happened. Many Muslim arguments I find condescending, like they think Christians are all idiots who haven't answered half the questions they bring before, or, in the case of many Wahabi arguments, I often find myself offended by their own shallow portrayals of Jesus (as) and his mission. Like I said, I believe that only through the lens of the Imams can one obtain clear vision of Jesus' character and mission, but that means we have to know what makes our understanding of Islam superior to all others so we can know what makes our understanding of the Islamic Jesus superior.

 

Also , I differ with you in my Co side ration when studying the historicity of Jesus case. Even in Quran it is clear that if we are to take the sources of the Christians we will not get the truth that Quran is teaching us. Please , let me know about your thoughts on the else's that follows 3:55 or this verse

 

Well, as far as 3:55 is concerned, all that verse mentions is the ascension, it doesn't mention that Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Jesus wasn't crucified, but I believe so based on the Twelver Shi'a traditions, not just the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.

 

I completely misread you here. I thought you said you believed in the crucifixion based on the Twelver traditions. I apologize.

 

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the Sunni line of argument. In fact, I think it serves the Shia Twelver better which likes to draw parallels between the Prophets from the lineage of Isaac and the Prophet and Imams from the lineage of Ismael (Moses=Muhammad; Yahya=Husein;Jesus=Mahdi, etc). It's probably even wrong to attribute these arguments to Sunnis since (if I'm not mistaken) they can be traced all the way back to the Twelver Hisham ibn Hakam who was a companion of the 6th Imam and an apologist for the Madhab.

 

But I agree in that every theology needs to evolve to remain relevant in the face of new sophisticated ideas that are often deeper and more esoteric in it's meaning.

Edited by Sea Ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...