Why Christians Glorify the Cross?

[Danah]

Peace,

I was thinking today, If the cross was the thing that Jesus was crucified on "as Christians believe" and suffered too much for the sake of humanity to save them from the original sin. Why it is glorified like this?

I mean if someone was killed/tortured by a certain tool, should we glorify that tool to keep remembering that person?:?

I was looking for that old thread of "Questions answered by Christians" but didn't find it!! If any mod can move this post to there I will be grateful. If not, then khair inshaAllah.

[Pygoscelis]

It does seem odd doesn't it? Imagine a religious group walking around with figurines of guillotines or electric chairs around their necks.

[What Is Truth?]

Peace,

I was thinking today, If the cross was the thing that Jesus was crucified on "as Christians believe" and suffered too much for the sake of humanity to save them from the original sin. Why it is glorified like this?

I mean if someone was killed/tortured by a certain tool, should we glorify that tool to keep remembering that person?:?

Do Christians glorify the cross? We regularly use it as a symbol to remind us of the suffering, humiliation and death Jesus went through for humanity to reconcile us to God, which is central to Christian belief, but I don't think we glorify that symbol. I find that thinking of the cross helps me to glorify God by helping me remember His grace rather than making me glorify the cross itself.

[جوري]

It does seem odd doesn't it? Imagine a religious group walking around with figurines of guillotines or electric chairs around their necks.

Oddly enough I found that to be one of your most lucid and apropos comments here..

Do Christians glorify the cross? We regularly use it as a symbol to remind us of the suffering, humiliation and death Jesus went through for humanity to reconcile us to God, which is central to Christian belief, but I don't think we glorify that symbol. I find that thinking of the cross helps me to glorify God by helping me remember His grace rather than making me glorify the cross itself.

Do you not find it odd to combine the words suffering and humiliation as a description of the one who created the universe and all that is in it.. believe me I am in no mood to get into another topic about how odd I find your beliefs.. but do you not for a split second find it odd to marry those words humiliation of God? Astghfor Allah il3atheem!

all the best

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

Do Christians glorify the cross? We regularly use it as a symbol to remind us of the suffering, humiliation and death Jesus went through for humanity to reconcile us to God, which is central to Christian belief, but I don't think we glorify that symbol. I find that thinking of the cross helps me to glorify God by helping me remember His grace rather than making me glorify the cross itself.

That's how I would describe it too. Well said, What is Truth.

It does seem odd doesn't it? Imagine a religious group walking around with figurines of guillotines or electric chairs around their necks.

Haha! My atheist husband once said 'When Jesus returns, the last thing he will want to see is crosses!'

[Danah]

Do Christians glorify the cross? We regularly use it as a symbol to remind us of the suffering, humiliation and death Jesus went through for humanity to reconcile us to God, which is central to Christian belief, but I don't think we glorify that symbol. I find that thinking of the cross helps me to glorify God by helping me remember His grace rather than making me glorify the cross itself.

well, even if we supposed "for the sake of argument" that its a symbol, why a tool of torture has to be taken as a symbol?

[What Is Truth?]

Do you not find it odd to combine the words suffering and humiliation as a description of the one who created the universe and all that is in it.. believe me I am in no mood to get into another topic about how odd I find your beliefs.. but do you not for a split second find it odd to marry those words humiliation of God? Astghfor Allah il3atheem!

In a word, yes. I think it is just about one of the oddest ideas anyone could think of.

[What Is Truth?]

well, even if we supposed "for the sake of argument" that its a symbol, why a tool of torture has to be taken as a symbol?

We also believe that it is a real symbol: that Jesus really did endure death by crucifixion. Just as an empty tomb is a symbol of hope and new life, we also believe that the tomb really was empty on the third day. As for why we think that what the cross symbolises is significant, we would have to explore the idea of atonement, and why Jesus' death is central to Christianity.

[glo]

Perhaps you have to understand the enormity of what Christians believe happened when Jesus died on the cross.
His death (and the cruelty of his death) and his following resurrection are central the the Christian faith.
It seems quite natural to use the cross as a symbol of our faith.

Jesus also instructed his followers with these words:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matthew 16:24)

Therefore carrying a cross around my neck is a reminder for me to do just that ... to carry my cross and follow Jesus!

Apparently the early Christians used the fish as their symbol (it is still used now). I don't know how reliable the Wikipedia source is, but here is a bit about the history of the cross:

In Christianity the cross reminds Christians of God's act of love in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary—"the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The cross also reminds Christians of Jesus' victory over sin and death, since it is believed that through His death and resurrection He conquered death itself. They venerate it not as a material object seen in isolation but as the symbol of the sacrifice by which Christ saved them, as the instrument of Christ's triumph, according to Colossians 2:15 ("Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross"),[6] and "as the instrument of our God's saving Love".[7]

[جوري]

In a word, yes. I think it is just about one of the oddest ideas anyone could think of.

Thanks for your honesty...

peace

[What Is Truth?]

[QUOTE=τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1318136]Thanks for your honesty.../QUOTE]
You're welcome. What I think is important is that we don't dismiss ideas simply because they seem odd. God speaking through a burning bush is pretty odd. Quantum Mechanics is just weird. I personally find the idea that God would allow men to corrupt Scripture rather strange, but I refuse to let that affect the way I see Islam. So it's up to everyone to try and put our subjective feelings aside and try and see things from other points of view, and do our best to make the most sense of what we find.

Peace,
Matthew

[Predator]

Haha! My atheist husband once said 'When Jesus returns, the last thing he will want to see is crosses!'

Your husband is right ,Jesus will be breaking all of them in his second coming

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, kill Antichchrist and abolish the Jizya tax.

[جوري]

Thanks for your honesty.../QUOTE]
You're welcome. What I think is important is that we don't dismiss ideas simply because they seem odd. God speaking through a burning bush is pretty odd. Quantum Mechanics is just weird. I personally find the idea that God would allow men to corrupt Scripture rather strange, but I refuse to let that affect the way I see Islam. So it's up to everyone to try and put our subjective feelings aside and try and see things from other points of view, and do our best to make the most sense of what we find.

Peace,
Matthew

For me 'truths' has to be built on logic not sophistry and convolution.. if you dismiss the idea and find that your scriptures are discordant then you'll be left with one of two conclusions, either they are not from God or god is an inept liar.. now given some of the other christian beliefs I don't think the idea of a deceptive god is far fetched, if a god forsakes his ownself for something as anti-climactic as reconciliation which apparently he was inept at establishing with these pitiful creatures that he created then there is no point to believe that this god will forsake others as well..
a god that dies and is untrustworthy in my opinion isn't a god that is worthy of worship and in fact cements some atheist ideas like the universe can function without this god, for surely in the period of his suckling years, the period when he was ****ing the earth he allegedly created for not bearing him fruit, the period when he was praying to his own self to not be forsaken and the period in which he died, the universe didn't collapse upon itself for his leave of absence and negligence then what is the point? god was ineffectual at even choosing apostles that wouldn't forsake him and had to appear in a non-visible form to man considered his nemesis who abrogated much of his commandments to send the masses into further confusion..

there is more to religion than pretty words put together.. else there is really no difference between one religion and the next, they all pretty much have some moral ethical code that even atheists find agreeable. If your faith isn't evidence based beyond a reasonable doubt then there is no difference between it and other falsehoods.

Obviously your core tenets and happenstances affect the way I view your religion and there is nothing that can be done to change that because all that can truly be done is to pas it with florid words to disguise some very convoluted beliefs that weren't preached by Jesus (p) himself .. the truth is simple it should be understood by the simplest as well the most complex mind.. you need not a convention of theologians to decide or attempt to explain God!

all the best

[aadil77]

Your husband is right ,Jesus will be breaking all of them in his second coming

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, kill Antichchrist and abolish the Jizya tax.

;D spot on akhi, I was just thinkin of that

[glo]

Your husband is right ,Jesus will be breaking all of them in his second coming

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, kill Antichchrist and abolish the Jizya tax.

Greetings,

That may be what Islam teaches ... although I can assure you that my husband wasn't talking from an Islamic perspective.
Purely from a human one, wondering what it would be like to return to this world and find people carrying the very torture instrument which caused your death ...

Just thinking though, wouldn't it be amazing to be there when Jesus returns ...
That will be the end of all the arguments between Muslims and Christians! And we will finally know the whole truth :)

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1Corinthians13:12)

[What Is Truth?]

If your faith isn't evidence based beyond a reasonable doubt then there is no difference between it and other falsehoods.

Agreed. You consider the evidence to point towards Islam, while I have found the evidence to point towards Christianity. I really enjoy the passion with which you put forward your beliefs, and I hope we get to discuss our differing views some time! :)

Matthew

[Supreme]

Well, I think glo pretty much hit the nail of the head when she posted the text from Wikipedia- I wear a cross because it reminds me of the immense love God has for me. I don't think many parents would let their only child take the blame of my sins and wrongdoings and subsequently let their child die so I could be free- only God has that sort of love. And that is what wearing a cross reminds me of.

[aadil77]

Just thinking though, wouldn't it be amazing to be there when Jesus returns ...
That will be the end of all the arguments between Muslims and Christians! And we will finally know the whole truth :)

It would be amazing because from an islamic perspective not only will you be witnessing one of the best prophets of Allah, but also the fact that he will kill the dajjal (antichrist) and prove all present christians wrong about their beliefs about him, then ofcourse everyone will be following the same faith. If this is meant to happen in my lifetime, then I honestly can't wait.

Do you guys also believe that he will return to earth?

[marwen]

Well, I think glo pretty much hit the nail of the head when she posted the text from Wikipedia- I wear a cross because it reminds me of the immense love God has for me. I don't think many parents would let their only child take the blame of my sins and wrongdoings and subsequently let their child die so I could be free- only God has that sort of love. And that is what wearing a cross reminds me of.

That seems to me a convincing reason for wearing the cross.
But if christians consider the possibility that Jesus may not have been crucified (has been saved by God), all this cross sanctification could be inappropriate. But I know christians don't consider this possibility because big part of chritianity is based on the sacrifice of jesus : i mean if we suppose Jesus(as) was not crusified, the whole sacrifice idea will be untrue.
I just said that, because muslim's believe Jesus(as) wasn't crucified
(mentioned in the qur'an :
004.157
YUSUFALI: 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'm sure many (should I say all) christians don't think the qur'an is true, but it's still a possibility.

Peace & Blessing.

[Supreme]

Do you guys also believe that he will return to earth?

Of course we await His return to Earth! Obviously it's mentioned in the Epistles and Revelation, but Jesus Himself mentions it:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

(Matthew 24:30)

The Second Coming is an integral Christian belief! Even the ultra- unorthodox regard Jesus' return as an important teaching:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_coming

The Second Coming of Christ or Parousia is the return of Jesus Christ from Heaven to Earth as expected in most Christian eschatologies. The anticipated event is predicted in biblical Messianic prophecy. These prophecies include the general resurrection of the dead, the last judgment of the living and the dead, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth (also called the Reign of God), including the Messianic Age. Views about the nature of Jesus' Second Coming vary among Christian denominations.

The original Greek version of the New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graece) uses the term parousia (παρουσία from the Greek literal meaning of parousia: divine presence, derived from "para": beside, beyond, and "ousia": substance) the "appearance and subsequent presence with" (in the ancient world referring to official visits by royalty). Parousia[1] is used in the Bible 24 times.[2]

The Second Coming is also referred to as the Second Advent, from the Latin term "adventus", for "coming". The study of biblical last days comprise a body of theological knowledge called Christian eschatology.

I'm sure many (should I say all) christians don't think the qur'an is true, but it's still a possibility.

Well, the death and Resurrection of Christ is THE most important belief of Christianity. Believing in the Second Coming, the Trinity, the prophecies etc all pale in comparison and are redundant without that one belief of Jesus' death and resurrection. Without that belief, there is no Christianity.

[What Is Truth?]

That seems to me a convincing reason for wearing the cross.
But if christians consider the possibility that Jesus may not have been crucified (has been saved by God), all this cross sanctification could be inappropriate. But I know christians don't consider this possibility because big part of chritianity is based on the sacrifice of jesus : i mean if we suppose Jesus(as) was not crusified, the whole sacrifice idea will be untrue.

I think you've made an important point here: the truth of Christianity rests on whether a particular event happened in history. If Jesus didn't die by crucifixion, then Christianity is obviously false. But if he did, then the Quran (and so, Islam) is false. Then coming to the point made by The Vale's Lily, we have to look at the evidence for and against (in this case using a historical method), and ask ourselves whether it supports either Christian or Islamic belief.

[جوري]

It would be interesting to see you accomplish that when there is no historical record 'outside of the bible' of Jesus having existed and the bibles from the numerous errors pointed out has no textual integrity to begin with even of Jesus alleged last words. The one historicall accounts of Jesus from a separate source is said to be a forgery for its glowing terms which no independent historian would use to record facts.

I wouldn't however say Christianity is false ... Christianity as you believe it is false- yes, however, there were monotheistic pious christians and are in fact mentioned in the Quran!

all the best

[Danah]

Well, I think glo pretty much hit the nail of the head when she posted the text from Wikipedia- I wear a cross because it reminds me of the immense love God has for me. I don't think many parents would let their only child take the blame of my sins and wrongdoings and subsequently let their child die so I could be free- only God has that sort of love. And that is what wearing a cross reminds me of.

Should you keep carrying a simple of the thing that tortured your God?
look at this scenario:
"If we heard about a person killed by certain kind of knives, and then we saw a group of people keep wearing a symbol of that knife. The first thing that will come to anyone's mind is that those people were supporting killing that person so much that they even keep remembering the tool that killed him as a kind of gratitude.
But if those people loved that person and glorify him we will see them at least wear something with his name written on it/ his image/ one of his belongings or something like this...this is what we see in today's life"

I hope you got what I meant here.

[What Is Truth?]

It would be interesting to see you accomplish that when there is no historical record 'outside of the bible' of Jesus having existed and the bibles from the numerous errors pointed out has no textual integrity to begin with even of Jesus alleged last words. The one historicall accounts of Jesus from a separate source is said to be a forgery for its glowing terms which no independent historian would use to record facts.

You raise a number of important questions that would be worthy of their own threads:

• Are the New Testament documents historically reliable?
• Can the original text of the New Testament be known with any degree of certainty?
• Other than the "Testimonium Flavianum" (which is clearly inauthentic) are there any other non-Christian sources for Jesus' life?

And I think there is one other important question that needs to be considered before we get into any of this:

• By what criteria do we investigate whether an event occurred in (ancient) history?

I would argue that even by the most skeptical criteria (like those applied by such non-Christian NT scholars as Ehrman, Crossan and Ludemann), we must either accept that Jesus died by crucifixion or deny that anything can be known about ancient history whatsoever. So, how would you go about answering this question?

Best wishes,
Matthew

[Supreme]

Should you keep carrying a simple of the thing that tortured your God?
look at this scenario:
"If we heard about a person killed by certain kind of knives, and then we saw a group of people keep wearing a symbol of that knife. The first thing that will come to anyone's mind is that those people were supporting killing that person so much that they even keep remembering the tool that killed him as a kind of gratitude.
But if those people loved that person and glorify him we will see them at least wear something with his name written on it/ his image/ one of his belongings or something like this...this is what we see in today's life"

I hope you got what I meant here.

I think I get what you're saying. But please understand this: the cross reminds of us the pain Jesus went through for us because He died for us. I know it's an odd symbol to have as a religion's main icon- an ancient method of execution- but I suppose the cross has just lost its status as a killing tool over time. Nowadays, no one is executed from Roman esque execution.

Now, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians- the forms of Christianity that are actually predominant in the world- have images of Jesus hanging on the cross with nails through His hands. I suspect this too reminds them of Jesus' love, although the image is gory, and is generally not used by Protestant Christians*, as the cross itself is sufficient.

*Bar some Anglicans, although they are so big, they cannot really be considered a Protestant denomination.

[Abu Zainab]

Just thinking though, wouldn't it be amazing to be there when Jesus returns ...
That will be the end of all the arguments between Muslims and Christians! And we will finally know the whole truth :)

You are right...that would be amazing. But from what little I know about human nature we will be arguing if he is the "real" Jesus. If he says he is the son of god we will say he is a liar and if he says he is a prophet you will say he is a liar.

The best way to seek the truth is to submit ourselves to the Creator of all that exists and and ask Him to guide us and "inject" the truth in our souls and minds. Ain't that fair.

"O Creator....guide me to the religion of Abraham....the religion of Moses....the religion of Jesus and make me stick to it till I die"

[Missinglinks]

bismillah alhamdolillah

Why having a simbol wich never happened, he was never crucified, read with me...


The Quran says in Surah Annisa 4:157
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:-

Jesus said before the "crucification" that he will do the wonder of Jonah, let's look what it was to refresh our memory.
Jonah 1:17
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.


SoThe wonder of Jonah pbuh was three things that I will ask you:
- When he was thrown overboard, was he alive or dead?
- When the fish ate him, was he (in the fish) during those 3 days and 3 nights alive or dead?
- When the fish spew him on the beach, was he alive or dead?
answer: It was a miracle, he should be dead, but he was alive in all the 3 cases.

But when we ask a Christian, was Jesus pbuh alive or dead during those 3 days and 3 nights? The answer is then: Dead

The wonder of Jonah pbuh was, that he was eaten by a fish and survived, the wonder of Jesus pbuh was that he was burried in the earth, so this is not the same as the belly of fish (the conditions are different), but ok. Jesus pbuh did not survive the grave, because he was already dead.
So coming back to live is not the same as being all the time alive.

The third thing i want to discuss: How long did Jesus pbuh stayed in the state of "dead"(in the tomb)?
Mark 15:34 and Mathew 27:46 say both that he pbuh died on: 9 o'clock in the evening on a friday.
Mark 16:2 and Mathew 28:1 say both that He pbuh rised back to live before (the sun came up) sunday-morning (after the sabbath).
So let's count : friday night , saturday night = 2 nights
saturday = 1 day.
1 day and 2 nights dead..... this is not the same as 3 days and 3 nights or 3 days (even if it were only "days" or jewish days or roman days, no system of time on earth has ever counted this as three days!!!.).
so, you answer yourselve where he was during those "3 days and 3 nights".

so he was never crucified, because the real jesus pbuh according to bible shoudl stay 3 days and 3 nights, maybe he fled???!

[What Is Truth?]

Jesus said before the "crucification" that he will do the wonder of Jonah, let's look what it was to refresh our memory.
...
so he was never crucified, because the real jesus pbuh according to bible shoudl stay 3 days and 3 nights, maybe he fled???!

A couple of points:

1. What comparison was Jesus making?
   
   Let's have a look at the relevant verse:
   
   
   "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40 (TNIV)
   
   It is clear the comparison being made is between the length of time Jonah spent inside the fish and the length of time Jesus would spend "in the heart of the earth" (which means buried in a grave or tomb). Jesus did not say "For as Jonah was alive for three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish..." The very fact that Jesus uses the phrase "in the heart of the earth" implicitly implies that he would be dead (because you don't bury people who are still alive).
   
   
2. What does the phrase "three days and three nights" mean?
   
   "A day and a night" does not mean 24 hours; rather it is a Jewish idiom meaning "a continuous length of time". Typically, that length of time would be between a half and a whole day (i.e. roughly between 12 and 24 hours). So "two days and two nights" would be between one and a half and two days, "three days and three nights" would be between two and a half and three days, etc. Jesus was entombed from Friday after sunset to Sunday after sunrise, which is perfectly consistent with the way the phrase "three days and three nights" was used.

Finally, just four chapters later in the same gospel, Jesus predicts his death again:

"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." Matthew 16:21-25 (TNIV)

So if you want to use Matthew's gospel as evidence that Jesus didn't actually die, you will need to show three things:

• that Jesus is using the Jonah story in order to show explicitly that he would be alive for three days and nights, and not simply buried for the same length of time that Jonah was in the fish;
• that Jesus' prediction of his death in Matthew 16 is inauthentic;
• that the reasons you give for the inauthenticity of Matthew 16 do not also show the "sign of Jonah" passage to be inauthentic.

[What Is Truth?]

Jesus was entombed from Friday before sunset to Sunday before sunrise, which is perfectly consistent with the way the phrase "three days and three nights" was used.

EDIT: I meant before rather than after.

[جوري]

we investigate whether an event occurred in (ancient) history?
I would argue that even by the most skeptical criteria (like those applied by such non-Christian NT scholars as Ehrman, Crossan and Ludemann), we must either accept that Jesus died by crucifixion or deny that anything can be known about ancient history whatsoever. So, how would you go about answering this question?

Best wishes,
Matthew

Your very question is faulty.. it is not a this or else response. I don't accept Jesus' alleged godhood based on your bible and logic alone I don't even have to seek other scriptures for that.. and secondly I don't accept that a God that is all merciful would 'forsake' his alleged only son, or himself in the case of Christianity for something as anti-climactic as having a taste of human-life and dying as a sin eater .. how many different versions do you actually have revolving around his death?

More than half of the books inside the NT were traditionally attributed to Paul. 14 out 27 were believed in to be written by Paul, thus speaks to the degree of influence that Paul had on the formation of the NT. Here is a man that has neither met with Jesus and was his nemesis don't you think that if god wanted this man as an apostle he'd have chosen him to sit with him at the table?

either way it is all inconsequential from a Muslim point of view because ultimately whether you believe him god or not wouldn't matter one bit, Jesus like other messengers before him was sent to a select few Jews again as per your bible.. thus the message whatever it maybe isn't universal!

all the best

[glo]

You are right...that would be amazing. But from what little I know about human nature we will be arguing if he is the "real" Jesus. If he says he is the son of god we will say he is a liar and if he says he is a prophet you will say he is a liar.

I believe that when Jesus returns there will be no doubt in anybody as to who he is!
No more questions, no more doubt - just the clear and simple truth ... and I hope that people will then still have the chance to submit to the Truth and to declare their faith in God.

The best way to seek the truth is to submit ourselves to the Creator of all that exists and and ask Him to guide us and "inject" the truth in our souls and minds. Ain't that fair.

"O Creator....guide me to the religion of Abraham....the religion of Moses....the religion of Jesus and make me stick to it till I die"

That's so beautiful! :statisfie
I completely agree. Submission to God and a willingness and open heart to accept his love and receive his guidance are really the best way to ensure a faithful journey with God.

May God bless you.

[Predator]

A couple of points:

1. What comparison was Jesus making?
   
   Let's have a look at the relevant verse:
   
   
   "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40 (TNIV)
   
   It is clear the comparison being made is between the length of time Jonah spent inside the fish and the length of time Jesus would spend "in the heart of the earth" (which means buried in a grave or tomb). Jesus did not say "For as Jonah was alive for three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish..." The very fact that Jesus uses the phrase "in the heart of the earth" implicitly implies that he would be dead (because you don't bury people who are still alive).
   
   
2. What does the phrase "three days and three nights" mean?
   
   "A day and a night" does not mean 24 hours; rather it is a Jewish idiom meaning "a continuous length of time". Typically, that length of time would be between a half and a whole day (i.e. roughly between 12 and 24 hours). So "two days and two nights" would be between one and a half and two days, "three days and three nights" would be between two and a half and three days, etc. Jesus was entombed from Friday after sunset to Sunday after sunrise, which is perfectly consistent with the way the phrase "three days and three nights" was used.

Finally, just four chapters later in the same gospel, Jesus predicts his death again:

"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." Matthew 16:21-25 (TNIV)

So if you want to use Matthew's gospel as evidence that Jesus didn't actually die, you will need to show three things:

• that Jesus is using the Jonah story in order to show explicitly that he would be alive for three days and nights, and not simply buried for the same length of time that Jonah was in the fish;
• that Jesus' prediction of his death in Matthew 16 is inauthentic;
• that the reasons you give for the inauthenticity of Matthew 16 do not also show the "sign of Jonah" passage to be inauthentic.

Jesus promised them a sign . A sign means a miracle - AN ACT BEYOND HUMAN POWER.

(Matthew 12:39)

". . . An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign (miracle), and
there shall no sign (miracle) be given to it, but the sign (miracle) of the
prophet, Jonah."

When you expect a man to die, and he does not die, only then is it a MIRACLE. If a man
faces a firing squad and six bullets are pumped into his body at the given signal, and the man
dies. Is it a miracle? "No!" But if he lives to laugh it off, would that be a miracle? Of course it
would be a MIRACLE. We expected Jonah to die each time, but he does not die; therefore, his
is a multiple MIRACLE.


Jesus too, after the ordeal he is supposed to have gone through, ought to die. If he died it
would be no miracle. But if he lived, as he had himself foretold, and proved "according to
the scriptures", it would be a "sign" - a MIRACLE! And these are his words:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son
of man be . . ." - (Matthew 12:40).

How was Jonah in the whale's belly for three days and
three nights - Dead or Alive?

The Muslims, the Christians and the Jews again give a
unanimous verdict of A-L-I-V-E! How was Jesus in the tomb, for the same period of time -
Dead or Alive? Over a thousand million Christians, of every church or Denomination give a
unanimous verdict of D-E-A-D!

Is that like Jonah or un-like Jonah in your language? And
everyone whose mind is not confused, says that, that is very

UN-LIKE Jonah. Jesus said that he would be "LIKE JONAH" and his infatuated followers say
that he was "UN-LIKE JONAH!". Who is lying - Jesus or his followers?

They say it was the time factor that Jesus was prophesying about, and not whether he would be Dead or Alive. They say, "Can't you see
that he is emphasising the time factor? He repeats the word, "three", four times." These are
drowning men clutching at straws, drowning women do the same! What did Jesus say?
Jesus was nowhere near the "heart of the earth"; he was supposed to have been in a
tomb, which is well-above ground-level. Maybe he was speaking figuratively.
Three and three are no doubt repeated four times, but there is nothing miraculous about a
time factor. The Jews were asking Jesus for a "sign" - a miracle and there is nothing to
make THREE days, or THREE weeks or THREE months into a miracle.

For eg: The first time when I went to New York from Chicago , 2 years ago , was by train, and the train took exactly
THREE days and THREE nights to reach there. Hooray! It's a Miracle! Nonsense you will say,
and I am forced to agree.

But it is not so easy for you to agree because your "salvation" hangs upon a thread.


Therefore you must hold on for dear life. We can afford to be charitable. So let us humour
you !

So was it the time factor that Jesus was out to fulfil?

You would say "Yes!" .

When was he "crucified" ? The bulk of Christendom believe that it was on a Friday afternoon some
two thousand years ago


More than a thousand and one sects and denominations of Christianity, bickering on every
aspect of faith, are nevertheless, almost all agreed that Jesus Christ was SUPPOSED to have
been in the tomb on the night of Friday. He was still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the
day of Saturday. And he was still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the night of Saturday.1
But on Sunday morning, the first day of the week, when Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,
she found the tomb empty. .



If it was the time factor that Jesus was trying to stress in the prophecy under discussion, let us
see whether that was fulfilled, "according to the scriptures", as the Christians boast.

You will no doubt observe from the above table that the grand total amounts to no more than
ONE day and TWO nights and, juggle as you may, you will never, never get three days and
three nights as Jesus had himself foretold, "according to the Scriptures". Even Einstein, the
Master mathematician, cannot help you for this!

Can't you see the Christian is giving a double
lie to Jesus from this one prophecy alone. Jesus said, that he would be LIKE Jonah!


1. The Christians allege that Jesus was UNLIKE Jonah. Jonah was ALIVE for three
days and three nights, whereas Jesus was "DEAD" in the tomb!(?)

2. Jesus said that he would be in the tomb for THREE days and THREE nights,
whereas the Christians say that he was in the tomb for only ONE day and TWO
nights

Who is lying, Jesus or the Christians?

[glo]

Greetings, Airforce

Your post made me smile, because I am forever struck (and bemused) by the literalism some Muslims seem to demonstrate. :)

The question of how long Jesus was in the grave inevitably raises it's head at Easter time in my house, so I did some research this year.

I found a couple of different thoughts and understandings on this - one (in a nutshell) being that at the time of Jesus' death there were two Sabbaths (one the ordinary weekly Sabbath, the other - two days prior - another annual Sabbath, the Day of the Unleavened bread). According to that theory Jesus died on Wednesday, was buried on Wednesday night and rose again on Saturday evening (as he had already been resurrected when the women came to the grave before sunrise on Sunday). Three nights and three days.
You can read more about that view here.


Personally speaking, I think we miss the point if we try to read Jesus' words literally.
If you know the gospels, then you will have an understanding of how often Jesus spoke in parables and stories to get his point across to his listeners.
He tried to explain to his followers the things which were to come: that he was going to die and be raised to life again.
The story of Jonah points towards the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was a story his followers would have been very familiar with, which they could have related to and which - hopefully - would have helped them to understand.
There is some information on the similarities between Jonah and Jesus here.


I found this article quite interesting:

Perhaps the source of the confusion over Matthew 12:40 ["For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."] occurs precisely because we try to read it in a literal fashion, as though it referred to a time period of exactly 72 hours. What we may be doing is reading our modern views of time exactness into an ancient figure of speech that didn’t contain it, or imposing our sense of precise time-telling on the ancient Jewish sense. In fact, Matthew 12:40 may be consistent with and reflect the way people thought of time in their day, not in our era.

Are there any biblical examples where "after three days and three nights" may not mean exactly 72 hours? Yes, 1 Samuel 30 is an example. The account in this chapter is about David and the Amalekites, and certain events in the village of Ziklag. Verse one tells us that, "David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day" (emphasis ours throughout). Upon arriving at Ziklag, David encountered an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. He told David, "My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago" (verse 13). The account also says that the Egyptian had not eaten or drunk for "three days and three nights" (verse 12).

However, proponents of a 72-hour burial say that how long Jesus was in the tomb was the sign that he gave of his messiahship. But is this true? While the apostles referred in a general manner to the length of time Jesus was dead and buried, they never used the chronological measurement as the proof. They used such expressions as "after three days" or "on the third day," but they did not attempt to prove an exact length of time. The apostles spoke of the resurrection itself, not the length of time, as the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. It stands to reason that the fact of Jesus’ death and resurrection is what demonstrates him to be our Savior. Whether Jesus was in the tomb two days, three days or ten days has no bearing on the issue of his messiahship.

In summary, if we remember that the phrase "three days and three nights" is an expression of the disciples’ culture, rather than scientific exactness, then we should have no problem with understanding Matthew 12:40. The "sign" that Jesus gave was not the length of time that he would be in the tomb, but it was the fact that he would die, be buried and be raised to life.

This last sentence (still from the same article) really sums it up to me:

We need not be concerned about the exact time Jesus was in the tomb, for our salvation does not depend on that. What is important is that Jesus died and was resurrected to become our Savior (2 Corinthians 15:3-4).

[جوري]

How do you decide which is literal and which isn't when you literally believe that god died?

all the best

[Supreme]

How do you decide which is literal and which isn't when you literally believe that god died?

all the best

That would purely be down to the individual's interpretation. I'm a liberal Christian- I accept that the vast majority of events in the Bible literally happened. However, I do believe there were some events- most notable in the early books of the Old Testament- that are more metaphorical than literal.

[Predator]

According to that theory Jesus died on Wednesday, was buried on Wednesday night and rose again on Saturday evening (as he had already been resurrected when the women came to the grave before sunrise on Sunday). .

Jesus didnt get resurrected because his body wasnt spiritual . The below verse by Paul says that the resurrected bodies are spiritualised

1 Corinthians 15:44

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

As we can wee that Jesus begins calming the disciples' fear for taking him
to be a ghost. He says:

"Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (I am
the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and
bones, as you see me have.
. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(Luke 24:39-40)

Jesus begins calming the disciples' fear for taking him
to be a ghost. He says:
What was the man trying to prove? That he had been resurrected from the dead? - That he
was a spirit? - What has the demonstration of hands and feet to do with resurrection? "It is I
MYSELF!" Can't you see, you fools!? "For a SPIRIT . . . " - any spirit, has "NO flesh and
bones, as YOU see ME have!". This is an axiomatic, self-evident truth. You do not have to
convince anybody, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or Agnostic. Everyone will
acknowledge without any proof that A SPIRIT HAS NO FLESH AND BONES!



Then why does Jesus need to belabour the point? It is simply because the disciples were
thinking that he had returned from the dead, that he had been resurrected, and if so he
would be in a spiritual form - A SPIRIT! And Jesus is telling them that he is NOT that - he is
not a spirit - NOT resurrected!

If I tell you in English that "Because I have flesh and bones - I am not a SPIRIT, I am not
a GHOST, I am not a SPOOK!" - is that what it really means in your language? You say,
"Yes!" (This reasoning equally applies to every language under the sun). In other words,
Jesus was telling his disciples, when he said: "Behold my HANDS and my FEET", that the
body he wanted them to see, feel and touch was not a SPIRITUAL body, nor a
METAMORPHOSED1 body, nor a RESURRECTED body. Because a resurrected "body" becomes
spiritualised!


The resurrected persons will be immortalised: Needing no food, no
shelter, no clothing, no rest. "For they are equal unto the angels," meaning that
they will be ANGELISED, they will be SPIRITUALISED, they will become SPIRITUAL
CREATURES, they will be SPIRITS!

he says: "Aspirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have" - I am NOT a spirit, I am NOT a
ghost, I am NOT a spook, I am NOT RESURRECTED! I am the same living Jesus - ALIVE!

"And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and feet."
(Luke 24:40)

The disciples were "overjoyed and wondered", what could have happened? They had
thought that he was dead and gone, but here with them stands their Master, with flesh and
bones - with 100% characteristics of a man ALIVE!


To assure them further, to calm their shaky nerves, he asks: "Have you here any meat",
i.e. anything to eat?

24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 24:43 And he took [it], and did eat before them

"And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb,
and he took it, and DID EAT before them." To prove what? That he is RESURRECTED?
Why does he not then say so instead of proving everything to the contrary? Presenting his
physical body for examination, eating and masticating "broiled fish and honeycomb



SO What is wrong with our Christian brethren? Jesus says that a spirit has no flesh and bones,
they say that it has! Please ask your friends among them; Who is lying? Jesus, Paul or you, the billion so-called followers of his?

[Steven John]

Peace,

I was thinking today, If the cross was the thing that Jesus was crucified on "as Christians believe" and suffered too much for the sake of humanity to save them from the original sin. Why it is glorified like this?

I mean if someone was killed/tortured by a certain tool, should we glorify that tool to keep remembering that person?:?

I was looking for that old thread of "Questions answered by Christians" but didn't find it!! If any mod can move this post to there I will be grateful. If not, then khair inshaAllah.

AsSalum o Aleikum,
I have no authority on this subject but will share some of my experience with you as i too have pondered question similar to your asking.

First and for most not all Christians have any importance of the cross. Some fellowships have gone to great lengths to ensure crucifix / cross are not to be seen.

Others keep the cross close to them. I dont know of any Christians that "glorfy" the cross as you word it. If i were to look at Catholics for example they say in their mass "all glory and praise is to the Father (Allah)" but they do venerate crosses.

I think to venerate means make holy, that is that item will be kept and shared only for religious reflections and celebrations.

Why "the cross" i feel it is more the lessons they have from the narrated stories they have of Yeshua (pbwh) surrendering his will to Allah. For the purpose that Allah could reaffirm that repentant sinners can turn to Allah. Some thing the Jews did not understand or teach from their understanding of the Torah.

Of course many of the Christian people have wide and varied levels of understanding as do Muslims about their faith practice. I remember and old Brother at the mosque had no idea why animals were offered over the three days. He did not know the connection to Abraham's (pbuh) offering but thought it was just to ahev a feed and the children were given money.

Allah encourages us to be patient and understanding looking for goodness in those who profess to be seeking Him.

May Allah bless and guide us

"i will be what I will be', you have free will so choose who you see

[جوري]

yeah the Arab Christians that I know Lebanese especially always invoke the cross and take its name so instead of saying in the name of Allah, they'll substitute with the word 'cross' in Arabic.. it is strange.. but then again nothing is strange anymore.. I have heard and seen just about everything..

:w:

[Steven John]

AoA,
it is interesting to know that some say Jews of old saw a persons name as meaning them, the way one is. So we may say in the name of Allah, best i understand is we want to do it His way. When a Christian does some thing by the way of the cross they would mean in self less giving. absolutely wrong to see Allah wanting us to do for each other in selfless giving.
Of course i have no authority to speak for anyone's heart, Allah knows best, this is just my reflection from listening and reading.

By His will may Allah bless and guide us as we seek to submit to Him in the ways of truth.

"I will be what I will be", you have free will so choose who you see.

[Steven John]

Edit , NOTabsolutely wrong to see Allah wanting us to do for each other in selfless giving.

[Al-manar]

Greetings

Greetings, Airforce

I am forever struck (and bemused) by the literalism some Muslims seem to demonstrate.

to resort to figurativism without strong support ,is a dangeorus technique that led to gross corruption to Religious texts ...

The question of how long Jesus was in the grave inevitably raises it's head at Easter time in my house, so I did some research this year.

What a coincide ...I remember I did research such matter at a time of Easter too !!:statisfie but that was years ago...

I think after all that serious research I did in the matter,I can say ,the problem of 3 days and 3 nights prophecy,still remains ..and has to be included in the list of New Testament flaws...

details in next post Inshallah....

[Danah]

AsSalum o Aleikum,
I have no authority on this subject but will share some of my experience with you as i too have pondered question similar to your asking.

First and for most not all Christians have any importance of the cross. Some fellowships have gone to great lengths to ensure crucifix / cross are not to be seen.

Others keep the cross close to them. I dont know of any Christians that "glorfy" the cross as you word it. If i were to look at Catholics for example they say in their mass "all glory and praise is to the Father (Allah)" but they do venerate crosses.

I think to venerate means make holy, that is that item will be kept and shared only for religious reflections and celebrations.

Why "the cross" i feel it is more the lessons they have from the narrated stories they have of Yeshua (pbwh) surrendering his will to Allah. For the purpose that Allah could reaffirm that repentant sinners can turn to Allah. Some thing the Jews did not understand or teach from their understanding of the Torah.

Of course many of the Christian people have wide and varied levels of understanding as do Muslims about their faith practice. I remember and old Brother at the mosque had no idea why animals were offered over the three days. He did not know the connection to Abraham's (pbuh) offering but thought it was just to ahev a feed and the children were given money.

Allah encourages us to be patient and understanding looking for goodness in those who profess to be seeking Him.

May Allah bless and guide us

"i will be what I will be', you have free will so choose who you see

Thanks for your imput

Isn't placing the cross at the top of most of churches' buildings is a kind of glorification and veneration?
Wearing those big crosses by those men of church like Popes and such who are getting the utmost respect from their fellowships can be another kind of appreciation for that tool torturing!!

[glo]

Thanks for your imput
Isn't placing the cross at the top of most of churches' buildings is a kind of glorification and veneration?

Why assume that Christians revere or glorify the cross?
From what I have seen in this thread different Christians have confirmed that this is not the case.

Perhaps you can strike a comparison by asking how Muslims feel about the Crescent Moon on top of mosques?
I also see Muslim jewelery and clothing depicting the crescent moon.

Yet I do not imagine for one moment that Muslims revere or glorify the moon ...

[جوري]

Why assume that Christians revere or glorify the cross?
From what I have seen in this thread different Christians have confirmed that this is not the case.

Perhaps you can strike a comparison by asking how Muslims feel about the Crescent Moon on top of mosques?
I also see Muslim jewelery and clothing depicting the crescent moon.

Yet I do not imagine for one moment that Muslims revere or glorify the moon ...

There really is no comparison, mosques also come in small room forms.. the symbol was instated centuries later by the Ottomans and has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever.. you really can't claim the same of the cross, the very symbol and instrument that your god died on!

all the best

[Supreme]

There really is no comparison, mosques also come in small room forms.. the symbol was instated centuries later by the Ottomans and has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever.. you really can't claim the same of the cross, the very symbol and instrument that your god died on!

all the best

True, there is no comparison. I'd far rather have a symbol related to me religion on church buildings, rather than a symbol unrelated to my religion instated hundreds of years later by an emperor. In fact, I would consider having such an unrelated icon on every church nothing short of blasphemous and a needless, unwanted addition to my religion.

[جوري]

True, there is no comparison. I'd far rather have a symbol related to me religion on church buildings, rather than a symbol unrelated to my religion instated hundreds of years later by an emperor. In fact, I would consider having such an unrelated icon on every church nothing short of blasphemous and a needless, unwanted addition to my religion.

for once I agree!

all the best

[cat eyes]

if jesus was the son of god or is god or what ever well when jesus was getting tortured to death why did god not save his only son from this dreadful torture before raising him up alive? lol what kind of god is that? im sorry if im coming across ignorant but why is it when you ask non muslims this they get all defensive and cant provide a proper answer for this? and the answers that they do provide dont make sense :hmm: lol

Sorry :hiding:

[Al-manar]

Are there any biblical examples where "after three days and three nights" may not mean exactly 72 hours? Yes, 1 Samuel 30 is an example.

Hold on ! the fact that we have 2 seperate events being counted here 1- the time of abandonment and 2- the beginning of the fast.
the first
It would be interesting if one provides textual evidence that they both began at the same time .....

One could logically come before the other.although his master abandoned him on Thursday afternoon the slave still had something to eat after his master abandoned him because the text says his fast did not begin until about Thursday sunset

now the question where is it in the
1- the Hebrew language

or even

2- the Hebrew literature

is any part of a day (as opposed to night) reckoned as a day and a night?

the commentary of The Companion Bible has a word too.



Appendix 144 From The Companion Bible.

The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the kings of Israel and Judah.
But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (John 11:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2 Corinthians 11:25 denotes a complete day (Greek nuchthemeron). When Esther says (Esther 4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, becuase she adds (being a Jewess) "night or day". And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night. In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1 Samuel 30:12) "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights". Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian (verses 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner (see Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol xi, page 77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness, and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated. Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17) it means exactly what is says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40; 16:4. Luke 11:30, is shown in Appendix 156.

more details later if needed
peace

[Supreme]

for once I agree!

all the best

Wow- first time for everything!

[جوري]

Wow- first time for everything!

true dat..:D

[Al-manar]

I think the following approach is misleading:

We need not be concerned about the exact time Jesus was in the tomb, for our salvation does not depend on that. What is important is that Jesus died and was resurrected to become our Savior


I have criticised such approach(details does not matter) in details before but let me give a fast quote as a reminder


Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)

If we are sure that the new testament writers intentionally or nonintentionally erred in parts of the resurrection narratives ,how would we be sure that they got it right in the rest??!!!!!

[Danah]

Why assume that Christians revere or glorify the cross?
From what I have seen in this thread different Christians have confirmed that this is not the case.

Perhaps you can strike a comparison by asking how Muslims feel about the Crescent Moon on top of mosques?
I also see Muslim jewelery and clothing depicting the crescent moon.

Yet I do not imagine for one moment that Muslims revere or glorify the moon ...

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/130/208/dc...03/4562782.jpg

That's a strange comparison glo, isn't it? :hmm:
lets see, what do you think is the meaning of crescent?
Placing the cross in the top of the churches' building is only one example of many of how Christians glorify cross in many ways.

[Ramadhan]

Why assume that Christians revere or glorify the cross?
From what I have seen in this thread different Christians have confirmed that this is not the case.

This is what I get to experience from christians on daily basis:
complete disconnect between words and actions.
You all say here that you don't revere and glorify the cross, but what I get to see real live (mind you, there are more than 20 millions christians in Indonesia and I know very well many of them) is quite the opposite: christians do revere and glorify the crosses.
I see also on TV where popes, pastors, priests etc revere them. I have lived in 3 western countries whose populations are mostly christians: australia, The USA and the Netherlands and have been inside churches during services, and what I saw regarding the cross is the opposite of what you stated.
Is it possible that those christians I saw are in the wrong?

Perhaps you can strike a comparison by asking how Muslims feel about the Crescent Moon on top of mosques?
I also see Muslim jewelery and clothing depicting the crescent moon.

I am not sure if you are actually quite serious with this comparison.
Either that or you have no idea about the meaning of (or rather lack of it) the crescent: It is just a decoration.
These days it is used on mosque to make it easy for people to identify that it is a mosque.

But if you are serious in making analogy, then I think you are the only christian I've met who thinks that the cross is just a mere decoration. Is that what you mean?

[glo]

I realise that comparing the crescent with the cross was not helpful in terms of where and how the symbol arose, and how relevant it is to the religion in question.
Thank you to all who have pointed it out. :)

But just as Muslims don't revere or glorify the symbol of the crescent, so Christians don't revere or glorify the cross ... instead we revere and glorify the One the cross reminds us of - Jesus.

Danah and naidamar, you seem to remain convinced that Christians revere and glorify the cross, despite having been told in this thread repeatedly by Christians that it is not so.
Reverence is something which happens inside your heart. How do you assume to know what Christians believe and feel, when they carry, wear or bow to the cross?
Are you perhaps making assumptions about what Christians believe because you interpret what you see through the lense of Muslim beliefs and behaviour?

Naidamar, I cannot possibly make a statement as to whether those Christians you refer to were right or wrong. I have not observed their actions, and I most certainly have not seen inside their hearts. Only God can do that, and God knows best. :)

[Ramadhan]

Danah and naidamar, you seem to remain convinced that Christians revere and glorify the cross, despite having been told in this thread repeatedly by Christians that it is not so.
Reverence is something which happens inside your heart. How do you assume to know what Christians believe and feel, when they carry, wear or bow to the cross?

This is why I stressed my point: There is a complete disconnect, between words and actions, between whats in the heart and their actions.

Christians say they don't revere and glorify the cross but their actions show otherwise.
Christians say they are all about peace and love thy enemies, but priests and nuns in Rwanda massacred their enemies while American christians supported Bush to attack and invade Afghanistan and Iraq and killed millions.

Are you perhaps making assumptions about what Christians believe because you interpret what you see through the lense of Muslim beliefs and behaviour?

naahh.... my agnostic and atheist friends also think that christians glorify the cross.

[Danah]

I realise that comparing the crescent with the cross was not helpful in terms of where and how the symbol arose, and how relevant it is to the religion in question.
Thank you to all who have pointed it out. :)

no problem, we are just discussing :)

Danah and naidamar, you seem to remain convinced that Christians revere and glorify the cross, despite having been told in this thread repeatedly by Christians that it is not so.

I see answers are not going with actions of Christians. For example, refer to what sis τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ said here about those who invoke the cross instead of God!!
I have seen many Christians in TV, Internet lowering their heads when they stand in front of the cross as a sign of appreciation!! Some even think that hanging the cross in their rooms or homes bring blessings to them! Some even ask those crosses in their home for blessings before they leave their homes as if the cross is something hear and see!!

:hmm: I don't really understand that!

Are you perhaps making assumptions about what Christians believe because you interpret what you see through the lense of Muslim beliefs and behaviour?

nope, The two religions are so different than each others, actually I just compare what Christians believe, with what they do hence came up with that conclusion.

[glo]

I have seen many Christians in TV, Internet lowering their heads when they stand in front of the cross as a sign of appreciation!! Some even think that hanging the cross in their rooms or homes bring blessings to them! Some even ask those crosses in their home for blessings before they leave their homes as if the cross is something hear and see!!

Forgive me, my friend, but you are still making assumptions ...

Yes, some Christians bow their head before crosses sometimes ... but what makes you think they are glorifying it? (I'm also not sure what you mean by 'sign of appreciation'. I think it's a sign of respect and gratitude to the one the cross stands as a symbol for - Jesus.)
Yes, some Christians hang crosses in their homes ... but what makes you think they believe the cross itself has protective powers??
Yes, some Christians may say a prayer before leaving their homes ... but makes you think they are 'speaking to the cross'???


Hoping that I am not drawing false comparisons again :phew, but when I see Muslims facing towards the Ka'bah to pray, I could assume that they are worshipping or glorifying it. (I know that is not the case, because Muslims have repeatedly assured me so - and I have no cause to doubt their word)

When I see the old Muslim man sit on the bench on the street corner with his prayer beads, I could assume that he considers the beads themselves to have divine or magical powers. (I don't, because I understand that his prayer beads are merely a tool for him to complete his prayers)


Do you know what I mean?
We may assume to know certain things about other people by the way we interpret their actions.
To find out what they really believe, think or feel, we need to ask them.

By the wording in this thread title you have started out with the assumption that Christians glorify the cross.
Despite several Christians having confirmed to you that they don't, you continue to hold onto that perception and assumption.
Could it be that you are not really interested in hearing what Christians believe, but that you would much rather hold onto your preconceived assumptions? :hmm:

Salaam

[Pygoscelis]

If Jesus came back 3 days later what exactly did he sacrifice? He didn't sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, he had a bad weekend for the sins of humanity.

[Danah]

Forgive me, my friend, but you are still making assumptions ...

Am I ?

Yes, some Christians bow their head before crosses sometimes ... but what makes you think they are glorifying it? (I'm also not sure what you mean by 'sign of appreciation'. I think it's a sign of respect and gratitude to the one the cross stands as a symbol for - Jesus.)
Yes, some Christians hang crosses in their homes ... but what makes you think they believe the cross itself has protective powers??
Yes, some Christians may say a prayer before leaving their homes ... but makes you think they are 'speaking to the cross'???

I told you I am not assuming, I read & watch that. I will give you some of what I read about Christians and their belief about the cross:

Maybe I misunderstand this, so would you mind translating the following:

Heavenly Father,
you sent your Son to us because you love us,
and want to save us.
By the power of his cross,
free us from sin
and let us live each day for you.

Why they ask by the power of the cross? Is the cross possessing any kind of power? why they don't say by the power of the christ himself?


Or this?

O Christ, against every danger I trust in the protection of the cross.
Till the day of my death, going into this clay,
I shall draw without-Christ's cross over this face.

They invoke the Christ first, then trust in the power of the cross!! why?

Or this?

Christ's cross be all my strength until we reach the King of Heaven.
Why they don't say Christ will be their strength instead of his cross?

Could it be that my English is not good enough to understand the above supplications? :hmm:

Could it be that you are not really interested in hearing what Christians believe, but that you would much rather hold onto your preconceived assumptions? :hmm:

Could it be that you think that I am someone who will waste her time here keep repeating the same song instead of hearing what others said? I have much more important things than playing such game here!!

[Danah]

If Jesus came back 3 days later what exactly did he sacrifice? He didn't sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, he had a bad weekend for the sins of humanity.

I always have that thing in my mind too!

If I said that I sacrificed my car for example, it means losing the car without returning it, otherwise it will be more like borrowing it for some time then return it.

[Supreme]

Here's a question: do Muslims on here distinguish between 'reverence' and 'worship'? Because, it is perhaps true to suggest Christians revere the cross- I know I revere it, and what it stands for. However, I do not worship the cross.

[Ramadhan]

If Jesus came back 3 days later what exactly did he sacrifice? He didn't sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, he had a bad weekend for the sins of humanity.

Exactly! especially since, according to christians, he is god, so presumably he knew in advance that he was just going to have a 3 days rest. What a sacrifice right!

[Ramadhan]

Here's a question: do Muslims on here distinguish between 'reverence' and 'worship'? Because, it is perhaps true to suggest Christians revere the cross- I know I revere it, and what it stands for. However, I do not worship the cross.

I think you value your cross more than glo does :)

[Danah]

Here's a question: do Muslims on here distinguish between 'reverence' and 'worship'? Because, it is perhaps true to suggest Christians revere the cross- I know I revere it, and what it stands for. However, I do not worship the cross.

Can you please tell me what is the meaning of the supplications I posted above?

[Supreme]

Can you please tell me what is the meaning of the supplications I posted above?

Reverence. Simple. No one is denying just how valued the cross is in Christianity. It is a crucial aspect of our faith, and part of the main Christian event.

[Danah]

Reverence. Simple. No one is denying just how valued the cross is in Christianity. It is a crucial aspect of our faith, and part of the main Christian event.

Well, Reverence that you seek its protection and power?

[Supreme]

Well, Reverence that you seek its protection and power?

It's a metaphor; replace 'cross' with 'Jesus' sacrifice', and you're along the right lines.

[aadil77]

It's a metaphor; replace 'cross' with 'Jesus' sacrifice', and you're along the right lines.

is that your own interpretation?

I'm always amazed at how many metaphors are used in christian texts

[Supreme]

is that your own interpretation?

I'm always amazed at how many metaphors are used in christian texts

That isn't just my interpretation, but the interpretation of lots of Christians. By 'the cross', it should be obvious we are referring to Jesus' sacrifice, at least to anyone who's familar with the basics of the religion.

[Missinglinks]

is that your own interpretation?

I'm always amazed at how many metaphors are used in christian texts

They have to... remember that jesus pbuh, according to bible, said that they are people with not the (brain?) capicity to recieve the full truth...

John 16 12"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. . 13But when he, the Spirit of truth(Mohammed pbuh), comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus didnt get resurrected because his body wasnt spiritual . The below verse by Paul says that the resurrected bodies are spiritualised

With respect to the verse which you quoted, I happened to spend this past weekend with N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and noted theologian and scholar. In discussing the general resurrection of the dead, he made note of the verse you mention

1 Corinthians 15:44

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

What he had to say spoke directly to the issue you have raised. He made note of the endings for the Greek adjectives used for "natural" and "spiritual". They denote not type nor substance but rather the source of power, what it is that animates them. This fits entirely within the context of the discussion as well. So, the natural body is that which derives its power from nature, from the fleshly world, but the spiritual body is that which is animated, given life and power from the Spirit, God's life giving Spirit that breathes himself into humankind. A quick look at other commentators will also substantiate this:

Paul answers the question some believers were asking -- viz., since a resurrection body was like the sinful mortal body we now have, how could the resurrection of such a body occur? Paul raises questions as a means of answering some of the proposed objections. He calls the questions foolish and in replying to them uses an analogy to the organizational structure of the physical life and world....

A[n] analogy involves the body of flesh various forms of animal life have-- differing kinds of flesh for men, animals, birds, and fish.... Paul is arguing that God is able to take similar physical material and organize it differently to accomplish his purposes.

In vv. 42-44a the apostle applies this to the truth of the resurrection of the body. God can take the mortal body, perishable, dishonored, humiliated because of sin, and weak--a natural body like those of the animal world--and bring that body that "is sown" in death into a different order of life in a spiritual body. Such a body will indeed have immortality, glory, and power. It will have a spiritual way of functioning similar to the way heavenly bodies function in contradistinction to earthly bodies. That by "spiritual" here (v. 44) Paul means completely nonmaterial is incompatible with the whole context, which discusses the differing organizations of material substance. The spiritual body is an imperishable yet utterly real body--one of a differetn order and having different fucntions from the eartly body; it is a body given by God himself--a body glorified with eternal life.

Verses 44b-49 develop the distinction between the natural body and the spiritual body, by bringing in two categories--one of Adam and his descendants and the other of Christ, the last Adam, and his redeemed ones. By "natural body" Paul means one such as Ada had (v. 45) when he was made of the dust of the ground and given the breath of life (cf. Gen. 2:7). By "spiritual body" the apostle means that an imperishable body that has received eternal life form Christ, the life-giving Spirit (cf. john 5:28), including a metamorphosis of the physical body to adapt it spiritually (without either corruption of mortality) for living with God (Phil 3:21), just as Christ in his resurrected and glorified human body (Luke 24:36-43) went to heaven to be with the Father (cf. Acts 1:11, 2:33).

W. Harold Mare, "1 Corinthians", The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. Copyright, 1976, Zondervan.

The sense is that the resurrection is not a spiritualized existence in the manner of being non-corporeal. Rather, we are raised with very physical human bodies, but these bodies rather than being animated by forces of the flesh are once again animated as they were originally created to be, by the presence of the Holy Spirit. So, just as we are all created in the likeness of the first Adam, scripture declares that we who are in Christ are now re-created in the likeness of Christ, "the last Adam", who came from heaven into a human body (the incarnation), a body that was glorified following his resurrection. Those who belong to him, Paul says, are also "of heaven" and will ultimately be like him. That is we will one day, in the day of the resurrection when heaven comes down to earth, be raised to new life in the new world order that is yet to be. That eternal life, unlike the medieval pictures one sees of heaven, will be a very physical life in a very physical world right here with heaven on earth. And it will be so for all of eternity with God.

[Grace Seeker]

if jesus was the son of god or is god or what ever well when jesus was getting tortured to death why did god not save his only son from this dreadful torture before raising him up alive? lol what kind of god is that? im sorry if im coming across ignorant but why is it when you ask non muslims this they get all defensive and cant provide a proper answer for this? and the answers that they do provide dont make sense :hmm: lol

Sorry :hiding:

I hope, then, that I do not come across as defensive. Whether you find it a proper answer or not I can't say, but it may be that God's ways are different enough from our ways that just as the Muslim says "Allah knows best", so to the Christian defers to God's judgment and logic rather than his own. To ask why God could not save his son, would be to have a presupposition that he would have, but was unable to. You don't ask that, but some do, I for one object that presupposition as assuming things that deny the reality of what God can and cannot do. So, given that God could have and chose not to would cause me to infer that in the scheme of things, God counted the cost and considered it worth it. Why was Abraham willing to sacrifice his son? Would the answer "because the most important thing in Abraham's life was submitting himself to honoring and obeying Allah's will, whether he fully understood it or not" be a reasonable conclusion? And why would Allah ask it of Abraham? Is it not as a test?

So to with the life of Jesus. Jesus who stands in for all of humanity does what we had failed to do and lives a perfect human life, fully submitted to the will of God. And in Jesus, God sees humanity finally pass the test to live that submitted life which every other member of humanity had to pass since the time of Adam. For reasons that I cannot explain (beyond the love of God and his unfathomable mercy) he imputes Christ's righteousness to those who, in faith, join themselves to God through him and thus makes redemption possible for all humankind.

That end, the redemption, restoration, and reconciliation of separated humanity is the goal of the cross. And as such, the scandal of the cross becomes testimony to the value God places on bringing about that reconciliation which could be accomplished no other way.

[Grace Seeker]

This is why I stressed my point: There is a complete disconnect, between words and actions, between whats in the heart and their actions.

Christians say they don't revere and glorify the cross but their actions show otherwise.
Christians say they are all about peace and love thy enemies, but priests and nuns in Rwanda massacred their enemies while American christians supported Bush to attack and invade Afghanistan and Iraq and killed millions.

I'll grant that many people (of all religions and no religion) have disconnects between their words and their actions. The slaughtering of innocents in Rwanda, in Armenia, and in Moscow subways are but a few examples of that. Christians are not immune from such disconnects. Given that reality, there are those who probably do go beyond having the cross as a reminder of Jesus and begin to glorify the cross itself. When that happens it probably isn't so much a disconnect as an overconnect, but either way it is wrong. As for those of us who utilize the cross not as an object of worship in its own right, but a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus and the price he paid for our salvation (I believe that this represents the majority, even if you do see behavior that you preceive differently) the reason that we do so is because it is a tradition we have inherited from previous generations. It comes to us as a symbol of God's love. As for how what was an sign of shame became the dominate symbol of the church, I hope you'll allow me to wait to post on that till tomorrow.

[Grace Seeker]

Exactly! especially since, according to christians, he is god, so presumably he knew in advance that he was just going to have a 3 days rest. What a sacrifice right!

IF all he did was take a nap for three days, then you might have some small point. But, that dismisses entirely the Christian understanding of Jesus as taking the sins of the world upon himself and the weight of that. Muslims here can't imagine that God would incarnate himself because of the incompatiblity with what that means in terms of bodily functions and the nature and character of Allah. Well, for Christ to take on the burden of the sins of the world was far worse than that which Muslims revolt at in terms of taking on human flesh. It wasn't so much death, it was the burdern of bering our sins that was the real sacrifice that Christ made.

[Woodrow]

Before this thread erupts, it is going to bed. I believe all posts that can be considered as insulting by anybody have now been removed, along with those replying to them. So to keep this from turning into a battleground or the promoting of a religion other than Islam.

:threadclo: