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
Eren

Jesus was crucified and the Qur'an supports this

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It seems that no one is agreeing here , so lets put it this way, Christians beleive that Isa(عليه السلام) was crucified to atone for their sins (basically a human sacrifice so they are forgiven) now obviously we Muslims beleive that forgiveness only comes if the person who did the wrong asks for forgiveness not with human blood or God blood(God forbid), which is where this whole crucifixtion subject is mostly based on , debating on wether he was crucified or not seems pointless to me , lets say for arguments sake that he was crucified , to Muslims that still wont mean we beleive in that atonement of sins thing, it just wont change anything from a deen point of veiw all this does is cause pointless debates, if we don’t know then we will know when we die and were in heaven inshallah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 11:16 AM, Eren said:

Salam Whole of their Imamate system based on reincarnation so if they reject it so they must reject Imamate of all Aghakhans until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, elite said:

will be as a non-Prophet.

Salam he will comeback to support & verify Imam Mahdi (aj) as his grand army General & negotiator with Christians to convince them to join to a Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 3:41 PM, HusseinAbbas said:

It seems that no one is agreeing here , so lets put it this way, Christians beleive that Isa(عليه السلام) was crucified to atone for their sins (basically a human sacrifice so they are forgiven) now obviously we Muslims beleive that forgiveness only comes if the person who did the wrong asks for forgiveness not with human blood or God blood(God forbid), which is where this whole crucifixtion subject is mostly based on , debating on wether he was crucified or not seems pointless to me , lets say for arguments sake that he was crucified , to Muslims that still wont mean we beleive in that atonement of sins thing, it just wont change anything from a deen point of veiw all this does is cause pointless debates, if we don’t know then we will know when we die and were in heaven inshallah.

I believe the biggest separation, and the reason for all the conjecture comes from Christian doctrine teaching that Jesus was God. 

I also felt that while reading  4:155-157 that the Jews misled themselves into believing they killed Jesus. 162 goes on to say; "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..."

Those who were of firm knowledge were the disciples who went on to teach a risen Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to look at the Islamic tradition by an large, and the majority of them (with exception of the Ismailis) say that the Prophet Jesus (عليه السلام) was NOT killed and NOT crucified.  

You cans say that only the Ismaili Tradition is different, and that is fine, but leave it as that.  

Can it be a mistake or a glitch in the destiny of God that the vast majority of Muslims will be WRONG to believe that Jesus (عليه السلام) was not killed and not crucified?

NO!   Having said that,

there is the Perennialist View which says that Both Christains and Muslims can both be right within their own respective universes.  What makes something right or wrong anyway?  What is objective Truth anyway?   I personally have the view that the Objective Truth is God Alone.  History is not objective..it is merely a relative and subjective interpretation.  Now some interpretations are sacred and some are not.  And there can be two conflicting sacred accounts.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2020 at 2:37 PM, Son of Placid said:

Those who were of firm knowledge were the disciples who went on to teach a risen Christ. 

False .

the indoctrinated gospels are teaching “death and crucification” which is in contradiction with Quran ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 1:57 AM, Eren said:

 

As the Isma‘ili thinkers argue, it was only the human body or the nasut of Jesus that was killed and crucified upon the Cross while the eternal reality or lahut of Christ can never be killed or crucified.

They took his “likeness”. 
read this link

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image_of_Edessa
 

and this , under part “account of crucification”.

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

 

here is a quote from “apocalypse of peter” :

“....the savior said to me:”he whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living jesus.  It this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame. The Who came into being in his LIKENESS. But look at him and me.” And I saw someone about to approach us RESEMBLING him even him who was laughing on the tree”. ( the apocalypse of peter 81)

Edited by Arminmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 1:51 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

The Biblical account

You disagreed with me here:

On 3/29/2020 at 9:42 PM, hasanhh said:

l truely do not see what is so overwhelmingly impressive about lsa -(عليه السلام).for some people. He -(عليه السلام). couldn't creat and ant or flower.

l Refereence again Ayat 3:49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Muslims think of the extant manuscripts of Josephus:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around 93–94 AD, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.[1][2]

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."[13] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[14][1][15][16][17][18]

Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. It is broadly agreed that while the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[4][6][7][8][9] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[5] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus".[15][39

Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testimonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.[53][55] In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus, a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.[55] Vermes states that the Testimonium provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.[55]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Muslims think of records of Tacitus:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

 

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

 

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I wonder what Muslims think of records of Tacitus:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

 

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

 

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] 

 

It's written way later than even most of the "canonical" NT are generally postulated to have been written, there's not much to say about it really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it amusing that basically all secular sources that have anything to do with primitive pre-Christianity (the word "Christian" being indicative of the proto-Catholic Church and not the Nazarene movement) always is recorded late and almost always just a report on things they heard that this small (at the time) religious sect happened to believe. No secular eyewitness accounts, nor any "canonical" eyewitness accounts.

 

Edited by al-Muttaqin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, al-Muttaqin said:

It's written way later than even most of the "canonical" NT are generally postulated to have been written, there's not much to say about it really. 

It was written perhaps just 50 years after the book of Mathew. And perhaps just 20 years after the book of John. Doesn't seem "way" later to me.

But even if it were 50 years later, why else might it be non credible, contrary to universal opinion by historians?

 

Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[55] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[56] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[57] However, Paul Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[24]

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[24] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.[63]

 

We would have to wonder, why would a Roman historian write of the crucifixion as history if he was disgusted by and despised Christians? Presumably, he wouldn't take their word for it.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it has to be said, if Tacitus, a Roman historian that lived at the time of the apostles, is not a credible source due to him being a second hand account, I dare not ponder what this means for accounts of the Quran on the same topic, written hundreds of years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Quran is explicit.

image.thumb.png.74810d40e158c9cc805712833bfc31bc.png

"they DID NOT kill him, they DID NOT crucify him, however, it was made to APPEAR so" "they have no knowledge of him but conjecture, they certainly did not kill him"

Who is "they"? The Jews. If the Jews did not kill him -> he did not die. 

Please learn Arabic and reference the Quran not a translation if you are going to be technical and stingy on the use of specific words in the Quran.

 

image.png.fa555b4364eeba8c305390d32392e562.png

Aha, next verse: Rather God raised him to Himself.

 

Some more:

image.thumb.png.9e34a7268a84c53d1a6df5458bbd70d8.png

3:55 - [Mention] when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.

 

 

With all due respect, our view on Jesus (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is Quranic while yours isn't @Eren

Edited by A_A

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.


×
×
  • Create New...