Jesus' Crucifixion

[doodlebug]

Could someone please explain to me how muslims view Jesus on the cross? I heard that muslims do not believe that it was indeed Jesus that died on the cross but I'm not sure how they reconcile that with all that the new testament says.

Thanks!:thankyou:

[glo]

Could someone please explain to me how muslims view Jesus on the cross? I heard that muslims do not believe that it was indeed Jesus that died on the cross but I'm not sure how they reconcile that with all that the new testament says.

Thanks!:thankyou:

I am, of course, not the best person to answer this, but since nobody has tried so far, I will give it a go. If nothing else, it will bump this thread to the top, and perhaps bring it to the attention of a more knowledgeable person. :)

As far as my limited understanding goes, Muslims believe that through divine intervention it appeared to the eye witnesses that Jesus died on the cross - when in fact he was taken straight up to heaven.

BTW, I don't think Muslims strive to reconcile the Qu'ran with the New Testament. Discrepancies between Qu'ran and other holy books are explained with mistranslations and other changes made by humans.

peace.

[- Qatada -]

Hi doodlebug.

Discussion with a Christian about the Crucifixion

Question:

Why is it so difficult for the Muslims to believe that Christ was crucified to erase our sins? Why do they reject the idea of the Crucifixion altogether?.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.


There is nothing strange about the Muslims rejecting this idea, because the Qur’aan in which they believe and accept what it tells them definitively states that that did not happen, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah,’ — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]”

[al-Nisa’ 4:157]

Rather the problem rests with the Christians for whom the doctrine of the crucifixion and redemption has become a central issue, so much so that the cross is the symbol of their religion.

It is strange that they differ concerning the form of this cross which indicates their confusion about this fabrication.


There are differences between their Gospels and their historians regarding everything that has to do with the story of the crucifixion.

They differ concerning the timing of the Last Supper, which according to them was one of the events in the lead-up to the crucifixion. They differ concerning the traitor who led (the Romans) to Christ – did that happen at least one day before the Last Supper, as narrated by Luke, or during it, after Christ gave him the piece of bread, as narrated by John?


Was Christ the one who carried his cross, as John says, as was customary with one who was going to be crucified, according to Nottingham, or was it Simon of Cyrene, as the other three Gospels state?

They say that two thieves were crucified alongside Christ, one on his right and one on his left, so what was the attitude of these two towards the Messiah who was being crucified, as they claim?


Did the thieves scorn him for being crucified, and say that his Lord had abandoned him and left him to his enemies? Or did only one of them scorn him, and did the other rebuke the one who scorned him?

At what hour did this crucifixion take place – was it in the third hour, as Mark says, or in the sixth as John says?

What happened after the so-called crucifixion?


Mark says that the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom. Matthew adds that the earth shook and rocks crumbled, and many of the saints rose from their graves and entered the holy city, appearing to many. Luke says that the sun turned dark, and the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle, and when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God and said, “Truly this man was righteous.”

But John does not know anything about all that!


These are not the only weak elements and indications of falseness in the story of the crucifixion, as narrated in the gospels. Rather the one who studies the details of the gospel narratives of this story will, with the least effort, notice the great differences in the details of this story, which are such that it is impossible to believe it all or even any part of it!


How desperate are the failed attempts to fill this gap and conceal the faults of this distorted book. Allaah indeed spoke the truth when He said in His Book which He has preserved (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisa’ 4:82]

Apart from the fact that the gospel accounts are not sound, and their authors themselves admit that they were not revealed to the Messiah in this form, nor were they even written during his lifetime, none of the witnesses were present at the events to which they testify, as Mark says:

“Then everyone deserted him and fled.”

Mark 14:50 – New International Version (NIV)

Because these events were not witnessed by anyone who narrated them, there is a great deal of room for imagination and poetic licence.

We will complete our discussion of the fable of the crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him) by looking at what the Gospels say about the Messiah’s prediction that he would be saved from death:


On one occasion the Pharisees and chief priests sent the guards to arrest him and he said to them:


“I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me. You will look for me, but you will not find me, and where I am, you cannot come.”

John 7:33-34 – NIV



Elsewhere he says:

“Once more Jesus said to them, ‘I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.’

This made the Jews ask, ‘Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, “Where I go, you cannot come”?’

But he continued, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.’

‘Who are you?’ they asked.

‘Just what I have been claiming all along,’ Jesus replied. ‘I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.’

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

So Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.’”

John 8:21-29 – NIV

Then at the end he tells them again:

“For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'”

Matthew 23:39 – NIV, also Luke 13:35

The Messiah, as these texts and others show, was certain that God would never hand him over to his enemies, and would never forsake him.

“But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

John 16:32-33

Because of that the passers by, and indeed everyone who attended the so-called crucifixion, mocked the Messiah, as the writer of this Gospel says (although that could not have been true):

“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads

and saying, ‘You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!’

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.

‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, “I am the Son of God.”’

In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.”

Matthew 27:39-44 – NIV

But it seems that Jesus’ certainty that God was with him began to waver, according to the distorted Gospel narrative, (although that could not have been true):

“Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, ‘Sit here while I go over there and pray.’

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.

Then he said to them, ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.’

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.’

Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping.

…
He went away a second time and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.’

When he came back, he again found them sleeping, …

So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners’”

Matthew 26:36-45 – NIV

Luke describes the scene and says:

“And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow.

‘Why are you sleeping?’ he asked them. ‘Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.’”

Luke 22:44-46 – NIV

Because of this mockery of the message of Christ – according to their claims – and because Christ thought that God was with him and would never forsake him, then it follows that the writer who fabricated this dramatic scene would end it with a vision of the despair of the Messiah and his feelings of being abandoned by God – exalted be Allaah far above what the wrongdoers say. The fabricator says:

“From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:38-47 – NIV

See also Mark 15:34

If we understand what this story means when subjected to criticism, the same will apply to the doctrine of redemption and sacrifice that is based on it.

With regard to the Christian doctrine of salvation, see also question no. 42573


And Allaah is the Source of strength and the guide to the Straight Path, and there is no Lord but He.


Islam Q&A


source: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?re...xt=crucifixion



Peace.

[glo]

Hi Fi_Sabilillah

Don't tell me you wrote all that in the 8 minutes between my post and yours! :giggling:

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure doodlebug will find it more informative that mine.:)

peace.

(Edited for typo)

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

[- Qatada -]

Nope, just a copy and paste job. I tried to find a reliable site though. And thanks for bumping the thread, otherwise - i wouldn't even look in the comparative religion section.


Peace.

[doodlebug]

Wow! Thank you sooo much for posting all of that and for the link as well! This is very interesting reading for me indeed.

[dougmusr]

We will complete our discussion of the fable of the crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him) by looking at what the Gospels say about the Messiah’s prediction that he would be saved from death:

From JewishVirtualLibrary.org:

"Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired."

From Tacitus Annals:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is interesting that neither of these articles deny Christ's crucifixion. It therefore would hardly seem to be a fable.

[QuranStudy]

It is interesting that neither of these articles deny Christ's crucifixion. It therefore would hardly seem to be a fable.

It's interesting that you used a Jewish site. Jews agree that Jesus was crucified but deny him as a messiah. They consider him as a radical Jew.

[Woodrow]

It's interesting that you used a Jewish site. Jews agree that Jesus was crucified but deny him as a messiah. They consider him as a radical Jew.

As Muslims we believe somebody, who the Jews believed was I'sa, was crucified but that the person crucified was not I'sa.

[dougmusr]

It's interesting that you used a Jewish site. Jews agree that Jesus was crucified but deny him as a messiah. They consider him as a radical Jew.

That's the reason why I used a Jewish site. They obviously feel Christ was crucified.

“And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah,’ — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]”
[al-Nisa’ 4:157]

The Quran maintains God deceived people into crucifying the wrong person. That means God deceived the crowd into killing a man for someone elses actions.

[evangel]

As Muslims we believe somebody, who the Jews believed was I'sa, was crucified but that the person crucified was not I'sa.

Why?
And please from the heart not eight pages of cut and paste.
(This is not meant for you Woodrow, I appreciate your well thought and original replies)

[doodlebug]

Not that I know what I'm talking about.....but if I understand correctly, they think that Jesus was indeed sentenced and maybe even tortured but in the end, God disguised someone else as him so that we would think he was crucified.

Do I have that right? Actually it makes more sense that he disguised someone else as him before he was even tortured.

[Woodrow]

Not that I know what I'm talking about.....but if I understand correctly, they think that Jesus was indeed sentenced and maybe even tortured but in the end, God disguised someone else as him so that we would think he was crucified.

Do I have that right? Actually it makes more sense that he disguised someone else as him before he was even tortured.

We do not know for certain at which point the change took place. I can see the logic that it would make sense for the change to have taken place before the torture. There is no actually verification as to who was crucified, except that it was not I'sa(a.s.). I've heard speculation that it may have been Judas.

I agree that God(swt) will not deceive us. So in my mind it must have been some condition in which the people actually deceived thenselves. I was not there so I can not say how God(swt) did this without it being deceit by him. I can only trust in Allah(swt) and if there is ever any reason I truly have a need to know I will learn it, Inshallah.

[dougmusr]

So in my mind it must have been some condition in which the people actually deceived thenselves.

This puts me in mental recursion. How can a person deceive himself? One online dictionary says:

de·ceive Audio pronunciation of "deceive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sv)
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives
v. tr.

1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.


v. intr.

1. To practice deceit.
2. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.

de·cep·tion Audio pronunciation of "deception" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-spshn)
n.

1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.

In either case, if a person attempts to deceive themself, they must know what is true in order to intentionally depart from it. My head hurts!

[Woodrow]

This puts me in mental recursion. How can a person deceive himself? One online dictionary says:

de·ceive Audio pronunciation of "deceive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sv)
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives
v. tr.

1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.


v. intr.

1. To practice deceit.
2. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.

de·cep·tion Audio pronunciation of "deception" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-spshn)
n.

1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.

In either case, if a person attempts to deceive themself, they must know what is true in order to intentionally depart from it. My head hurts!

Self deception does not have to be deliberate or something a person is aware of. On a physical level it happens quite frequently, it is not unusual for a person to feel touch, see or feel something and initialy perceive it as different then it actually is.

Mass hysteria is also a form of self deception. A good example is a group of people anticipating to see an UFO. Almost invariably a large percentage of the group will report seeing a UFO, even if nothing was there.

Now, getting back to my response you quoted. I do not know it that is what happened. I do know that God(swt) will not deceive us. So there must be some reason that could take place without it being deception. I do not know how. That was just my guess as to a possibility.

[doodlebug]

Ok so say God did deceive everyone by replacing Jesus with say, Judas.

How is it explained that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared before the 12 apostles on the third day?

[Woodrow]

Ok so say God did deceive everyone by replacing Jesus with say, Judas.

How is it explained that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared before the 12 apostles on the third day?

How is it that the Gospels were not written until long after everybody credited in saying so was long Dead. And that all the earliest approved versions are in Greek, but except for Paul all of the Apostles spoke Aramaic.

Keep in mind as Muslims we believe the Gospels as they stand today are misinterpretations.

There are several gospels in Aramaic that were not approved by the Catholic Church. They give a different view as to what was written in Greek.

[Joe98]

Keep in mind as Muslims we believe the Gospels as they stand today are misinterpretations.

I cannot fathom why. There is no logic in calling it a misinterpretation.

The only logical reason for calling it a misinterpretation is to discredit it.

The men were witnesses to a series of events. Many years afterwards, the men, or their followers, wrote it down.

When Islam says it is a misinterpretation of what they witnessed, I say it makes Islam look bad.

If instead Islam said “yes it all happened that way” and then went on to say “afterwards
g-d spoke to the prophet Mohammad” then Islam would sound authentic. Instead, its sounds like it is scared the Christians might be right.

[Woodrow]

I cannot fathom why. There is no logic in calling it a misinterpretation.

The only logical reason for calling it a misinterpretation is to discredit it.

I do not believe the words are true. Yes the intent is to discredit it as being presented as fact. Not to discredit the people who believe the words to be true.

The men were witnesses to a series of events. Many years afterwards, the men, or their followers, wrote it down.

True there were witnesses, but the witnesses never wrote a single ord of what is now presented as their words

When Islam says it is a misinterpretation of what they witnessed, I say it makes Islam look bad.

The writings that are being presented are not the words of what the witnesses said.

If instead Islam said “yes it all happened that way” and then went on to say “afterwards

That is what we are saying. We are saying it happened as it is revealed in the Qur'an and then presented in the untrue manner. Which is why the Qur'an was revealed, to return exactly what was said and not the words who are saying what they believe was said,

g-d spoke to the prophet Mohammad” then Islam would sound authentic. Instead, its sounds like it is scared the Christians might be right.

Explain how that makes it sound like the Christians might be right.

[*Hana*]

Salam alaikum:

Actually, brother Woodrow is absolutely correct. NOTHING was written in the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh, and there are no records indicating Jesus, pbuh, asked for written documentation. Even if there had been, they have long since been lost or destroyed as absolutely nothing has been found that was written during His lifetime. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John....not ONE was alive at the time of Jesus, pbuh. Paul, however, was most certainly alive and spent that time killing and persecuting followers of Jesus, pbuh, and wanting nothing more than to see Jesus, pbuh, dead. The writers of these books are unknown, therefore not even the oral tradition can be traced back for authenticity.

Paul never met Jesus, pbuh, and even after his miraculous vision he didn't turn to the chosen Apostles to learn....he went into hiding for 3 years! It was much later before he even met with Peter and James. The true followers of Jesus, pbuh, never accepted Paul or his doctrine and many believe they were directly responsible for his death.

None of the Apostles were witnesses to a crucifixion, "They forsook Him and fled" (both Mark and Matthew confirm this). There are no eyewitness accounts at all. The Jews said they killed Him, the Apostles believed it. Why else would they be frightened when Jesus, pbuh, was to come to them later? They expected Him to be dead and thought He was a ghost. However, Jesus, pbuh, tells them He is not a spirit. He tells them a spirit does not have flesh like He does. He goes so far as to ask for food. A spirit doesn't have the need for food. So, obviously, He never died. He was very much alive. According to the bible when Jesus, pbuh, spoke with Mary at the entrance of the tomb and she was about to touch Him, He told her,
KJV: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Remember a spirit can't die twice. Luke, Mark, and Matthew all say, a resurrected body is like that of Angels. There is no need for food, water, etc. They become immortal. Jesus, pbuh, was not dead when He went to the disciples and told them exactly that.

Call it whatever you like, mistranslation, misquote or inaccuracy....the facts speak for themselves. If He died, as Christian doctrine suggests, why did He try to convince the disciples otherwise and why did He tell Mary Magdalen He wasn't dead? He was, however, very much alive as the Qur'an tells us and never died, but was taken up.

A Christian may not agree with our line of thinking, but for Muslims, there are plenty of reasons to question the accuracy of the Biblical account. How does this make Islam look bad? Unless you're saying it's wrong to question? If you never question, you never find truth. :)

Peace,
Hana

[dougmusr]

God’s reestablishment of the truths and ordinances of his gospel among men on earth. The gospel of Jesus Christ was lost from the earth through the apostasy that took place following the earthly ministry of Christ’s Apostles. That apostasy made necessary the restoration of the gospel. Through visions, the ministering of angels, and revelations to men on the earth, God restored the gospel. The Restoration started with the Prophet Joseph Smith (JS-H 1: 1-75; D&C 128: 20-21) and has continued to the present through the work of the Lord’s living prophets.

Thank goodness Joseph Smith came along to correct the Gospels or we'd be in a real mess.

[dougmusr]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John....not ONE was alive at the time of Jesus, pbuh.

YUSUFALI: When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

Paul, however, was most certainly alive and spent that time killing and persecuting followers of Jesus, pbuh, and wanting nothing more than to see Jesus, pbuh, dead. The writers of these books are unknown, therefore not even the oral tradition can be traced back for authenticity.

Paul never met Jesus, pbuh, and even after his miraculous vision he didn't turn to the chosen Apostles to learn....he went into hiding for 3 years! It was much later before he even met with Peter and James. The true followers of Jesus, pbuh, never accepted Paul or his doctrine and many believe they were directly responsible for his death.

Sound like a vision from God turned his life around and he became a messenger.

None of the Apostles were witnesses to a crucifixion, "They forsook Him and fled" (both Mark and Matthew confirm this). There are no eyewitness accounts at all.

Crucifixion if I understand it correctly was a public execution in a highly visible place. The fact the apostles fled does not mean that others did not witness the crucifixion, nor that the apostles did not watch from a distance. Acts says it was widly known.

Lk 24:13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them.
16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. 17 And He said to them, "What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?" 18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, "Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?" 19 And He said to them, "What things?" So they said to Him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 "and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 "Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 "When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 "And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see."
25 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

[Woodrow]

The person who wrote that the apostles were not alive at the time of I'sa(as) appears to have been mistaken. Perhaps my writing that the Gosples were written in Greek after they died is what caused the confusion.

We really have no doubt that somebody was crucified or at least killed in some unpleasant manner. We also have no doubt that it was witnessed by many and that the people did believe it was Is'a(as). But we do not believe it was I'sa.



Now as far as the empty tomb, I do not know if that was or was not. I do believe that I'sa(as) did ascend into Heaven, but he did not die on Earth, he ascended bodily and living and he will return to Earth.

[dougmusr]

The Jews said they killed Him, the Apostles believed it. Why else would they be frightened when Jesus, pbuh, was to come to them later?

It seems quite clear. The apostles were human and outside of Lazarus, had not experienced a ressurection. The apostles were disciples of Christ, meaning they were in training. Much of their learning came after remembering Christ's words and reflecting on past events. I do not find fear to be an abnormal reaction to seeing someone you thought had been crucified alive.

They expected Him to be dead and thought He was a ghost. However, Jesus, pbuh, tells them He is not a spirit. He tells them a spirit does not have flesh like He does. He goes so far as to ask for food. A spirit doesn't have the need for food.So, obviously, He never died.

There are many who eat without needing to eat. For spirits, it may be part of the enjoyment of Heaven, unless the Quran is incorrect.

036.057
YUSUFALI: (Every) fruit (enjoyment) will be there for them; they shall have whatever they call for;
PICKTHAL: Theirs the fruit (of their good deeds) and theirs (all) that they ask;
SHAKIR: They shall have fruits therein, and they shall have whatever they desire.

He was very much alive... Call it whatever you like, mistranslation, misquote or inaccuracy....the facts speak for themselves. If He died, as Christian doctrine suggests, why did He try to convince the disciples otherwise and why did He tell Mary Magdalen He wasn't dead? He was, however, very much alive as the Qur'an tells us and never died, but was taken up.

Actually He was trying to convince them He had risen from the dead. He is still trying to convince Muslims of this today.

Lk 16:19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' 27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

[doodlebug]

i'm more confused now than i was before. I thought muslims believe that he was taken up to heaven before being tortured/crucified. If so, how would he appear to the apostles alive?

And....to the best of my knowledge, all 12 apostles were there with Jesus at the last supper so of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were alive when he was alive.

Again...I"m not understanding what exactly you all believe because one person is saying one thing and another is saying something different.

[dougmusr]

i'm more confused now than i was before. I thought muslims believe that he was taken up to heaven before being tortured/crucified. If so, how would he appear to the apostles alive?

And....to the best of my knowledge, all 12 apostles were there with Jesus at the last supper so of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were alive when he was alive.

Again...I"m not understanding what exactly you all believe because one person is saying one thing and another is saying something different.

Not to mention with scars on His hands, feet, and side.

[جوري]

There are many who eat without needing to eat. For spirits, it may be part of the enjoyment of Heaven, unless the Quran is incorrect.

036.057
YUSUFALI: (Every) fruit (enjoyment) will be there for them; they shall have whatever they call for;
PICKTHAL: Theirs the fruit (of their good deeds) and theirs (all) that they ask;
SHAKIR: They shall have fruits therein, and they shall have whatever they desire.



"

I don't want to comment on your post at all except for this portion partially because I am not part of this debate and partially b/c it wasn't addressed to me....
the verse you are referring to goes in a series like this
إِنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ الْيَوْمَ فِي شُغُلٍ فَاكِهُونَ {55}
[Yusufali 36:55] Verily the Companions of the Garden shall that Day have joy in all that they do;
)
هُمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُمْ فِي ظِلَالٍ عَلَى الْأَرَائِكِ مُتَّكِؤُونَ {56}
[Yusufali 36:56] They and their associates will be in groves of (cool) shade, reclining on Thrones (of dignity);

لَهُمْ فِيهَا فَاكِهَةٌ وَلَهُم مَّا يَدَّعُونَ {57}
[Yusufali 36:57] (Every) fruit (enjoyment) will be there for them; they shall have whatever they call for;


when we if God wills it go to heaven, we will NOT BE IN "spirit" form the verses above clearly speak of the Gardens .. ... same ones where ADAM and his wife once dwelled... same ones where they enjoyed and ate fruits and whatever else... we will live there eternally...it isn't Hades it is heaven... That is God's promise... I don't see how the verse relates at all to your argument... if interested at all you should read the whole passage to develop a more thorough understanding as opposed to a myopic view to make a point......
peace

[جوري]

i'm more confused now than i was before. I thought muslims believe that he was taken up to heaven before being tortured/crucified. If so, how would he appear to the apostles alive?

And....to the best of my knowledge, all 12 apostles were there with Jesus at the last supper so of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were alive when he was alive.

Again...I"m not understanding what exactly you all believe because one person is saying one thing and another is saying something different.

No one can give you finite details here.... Muslims believe he was taken up to heaven to return when time is right to die like the son of man not the son of God as all man kind will. Some believe it was Judas who was crucified in his stead ... and some believe another person who looked like him... I am rooting that it was Judas but I don't know... I know that Jesus is to return to put an end to all the innovations that have taken place, to unify the world ... to pray like Muslims do ... to show that there is but ONE GOD ... no sons ... no daughters ... no wives ... no one sits on the throne but Allah( Allaha) Aramiac (yaweh) One GOD....... why don't people have reverence for the Throne of God it is a conundrum... I just saw the most disgusting Simpsons episode where they have Jesus on a swing rocking back and forth and God stating look what you have done to my son Homer.... If it is all a joke to people and I see it as Joke for most then so be it... But it isn't to Muslims....

[dougmusr]

I don't want to comment on your post at all except for this portion partially because I am not part of this debate and partially b/c it wasn't addressed to me....
the verse you are referring to goes in a series like this
إِنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ الْيَوْمَ فِي شُغُلٍ فَاكِهُونَ {55}
[Yusufali 36:55] Verily the Companions of the Garden shall that Day have joy in all that they do;
)
هُمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُمْ فِي ظِلَالٍ عَلَى الْأَرَائِكِ مُتَّكِؤُونَ {56}
[Yusufali 36:56] They and their associates will be in groves of (cool) shade, reclining on Thrones (of dignity);

لَهُمْ فِيهَا فَاكِهَةٌ وَلَهُم مَّا يَدَّعُونَ {57}
[Yusufali 36:57] (Every) fruit (enjoyment) will be there for them; they shall have whatever they call for;


when we if God wills it go to heaven, we will NOT BE IN "spirit" form the verses above clearly speak of the Gardens .. ... same ones where ADAM and his wife once dwelled... same ones where they enjoyed and ate fruits and whatever else... we will live there eternally...it isn't Hades it is heaven... That is God's promise... I don't see how the verse relates at all to your argument... if interested at all you should read the whole passage to develop a more thorough understanding as opposed to a myopic view to make a point......
peace

If, as you say Islam believes that people are in paradise in the flesh, then your point is valid. I presume you also believe people are in Hell in the flesh since the verses on judgement follow the verses on the garden. If this is so, then God will work a miracle in maintaining them physically alive while he toasts them.

036.063
YUSUFALI: "This is the Hell of which ye were (repeatedly) warned!
PICKTHAL: This is hell which ye were promised (if ye followed him).
SHAKIR: This is the hell with which you were threatened.

036.064
YUSUFALI: "Embrace ye the (fire) this Day, for that ye (persistently) rejected (Truth)."
PICKTHAL: Burn therein this day for that ye disbelieved.
SHAKIR: Enter into it this day because you disbelieved.

[Joe98]

[Yusufaliufali 36:56] They and their associates will be in groves of cool shade, reclining on Thrones of dignity.

I wonder how eskimos would interpret this verse?

People who dwell in the hot desert would find this verse very attractive. It is clear this verse is directed at people who live in hot climates - the Middle East.

This means the message

1 - did not come from God or;

2 - God forgot about those who live in cold countries.

[جوري]

If, as you say Islam believes that people are in paradise in the flesh, then your point is valid. I presume you also believe people are in Hell in the flesh since the verses on judgement follow the verses on the garden. If this is so, then God will work a miracle in maintaining them physically alive while he toasts them.

036.063
YUSUFALI: "This is the Hell of which ye were (repeatedly) warned!
PICKTHAL: This is hell which ye were promised (if ye followed him).
SHAKIR: This is the hell with which you were threatened.

036.064
YUSUFALI: "Embrace ye the (fire) this Day, for that ye (persistently) rejected (Truth)."
PICKTHAL: Burn therein this day for that ye disbelieved.
SHAKIR: Enter into it this day because you disbelieved.

yup... people in hell are in the flesh.. if you study science you'll know that pain can only be felt during first and 2nd degree burns and the miracles of this is that God stated he will keep replacing their skin whenever it blisters off so they will feel pain anew...

[جوري]

I wonder how eskimos would interpret this verse?

People who dwell in the hot desert would find this verse very attractive. It is clear this verse is directed at people who live in hot climates - the Middle East.

This means the message

1 - did not come from God or;

2 - God forgot about those who live in cold countries.

Are you Waldo? or is this another one of your fancy thesis? and it is just "tooooooooooo subtle" for us to pick up on?

[Joe98]

God stated he will keep replacing their skin whenever it blisters off so they will feel pain anew...

Praise to Allah!

[جوري]

"Truly, those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall fling into the fire: As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall exchange them for fresh skins, that they may taste the punishment.." [4:56]"
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) would have no way of knowing of first or second degree burns...

[dougmusr]

yup... people in hell are in the flesh.. if you study science you'll know that pain can only be felt during first and 2nd degree burns and the miracles of this is that God stated he will keep replacing their skin whenever it blisters off so they will feel pain anew...

Jesus says punishment of evil follows resurrection.

Jn 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 "and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The Quran likewise says the day of judgement follows this life.

002.085
YUSUFALI: After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
PICKTHAL: Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
SHAKIR: Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.

[جوري]

What am I to make of this doug?
I quoted you a verse from the Quran as to the punishment in Hell in reply that yes people will be in flesh I don't know what sort but they will not be "spirits"
"Truly, those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall fling into the fire: As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall exchange them for fresh skins, that they may taste the punishment.." [4:56]"
One the day of judgment we come as we are when we died from my understanding and when we enter into heaven or hell we'll take on the form that God wills... why is that so difficult to comprehend... the one who created each soul the first time around will account for each soul he created...

[Woodrow]

i'm more confused now than i was before. I thought muslims believe that he was taken up to heaven before being tortured/crucified. If so, how would he appear to the apostles alive?

And....to the best of my knowledge, all 12 apostles were there with Jesus at the last supper so of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were alive when he was alive.

Again...I"m not understanding what exactly you all believe because one person is saying one thing and another is saying something different.

The confusion is very understandable. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that God(swt) did send the truth down to man. We have 3 different books. Although there are similarities there are enough differences to say that they are totaly different not just different translations, different stories.


It is like saying that at one time there was only one form of cooking and a great cook book was written telling how to cook. Centuries later there are 3 cook books. One for French Cuisine, another for Chinese dishes and another for North American Indians.

Each will say theirs is the true cook book. Now you can can not convince the American Indian that the French Cooking is the proper way to cook by explaining it through the French cook book. He will show you in his cook book the proper way to cook. That will be a repeated arguement between them until doomsday. so, it is with us.

We are each talking about different things, similar but not the same.

[جوري]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِآيَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِمْ نَارًا كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا لِيَذُوقُواْ الْعَذَابَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا {56}
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:56]
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:


Those who disbelieve Allah's signs shall be cast into fire, and when their skin (jild) is burnt up, then Allah shall give them a new skin so that they may go on tasting the agony of punishment. The continuous torment or comfort will be physical as well as spiritual. The outer structure of the body communicates the feelings of pain or pleasure to the soul, and as the cognitive self is not changed, the renewed outer structure, though had not committed the sin, yet will be used to convey pain or pleasure to the unchangeable soul. None of the senses will ever be destroyed but will be made sharper to taste pain or pleasure. Refer to al-Qaf: 20 to 22. This verse refers to the continuity of a process, therefore, it negates the theory of transmigration of the soul-return of the departed soul to another body which has a soul of its own.

[dougmusr]

What am I to make of this doug?

1. Hana_Aku said Jesus was alive because spirits don't eat. I cited a verse from the Quran which I believe indicated people in Heaven will enjoy fruit.
2. You said the reference to a garden in the verse indicates people are in heaven in the flesh since Adam was in the garden in the flesh, and further went on to say people are in Hell in the flesh.
3. Both the Quran and the Bible say one must be resurrected to experience Heaven and Hell.

[جوري]

1. Hana_Aku said Jesus was alive because spirits don't eat. I cited a verse from the Quran which I believe indicated people in Heaven will enjoy fruit.
2. You said the reference to a garden in the verse indicates people are in heaven in the flesh since Adam was in the garden in the flesh, and further went on to say people are in Hell in the flesh.
3. Both the Quran and the Bible say one must be resurrected to experience Heaven and Hell.

Good enough I'll accept it... have a great evening I am off :)

[dougmusr]

Each will say theirs is the true cook book. Now you can can not convince the American Indian that the French Cooking is the proper way to cook by explaining it through the French cook book. He will show you in his cook book the proper way to cook. That will be a repeated arguement between them until doomsday. so, it is with us.

One does not evaluate the truth of a cook book without sampling the recipes. If the recipes make good food, then the cook book is good. If one does not live through the experience, the cook book probably was probably a general chemistry book rebound with the wrong cover.

[جوري]

The confusion is very understandable. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that God(swt) did send the truth down to man. We have 3 different books. Although there are similarities there are enough differences to say that they are totaly different not just different translations, different stories.


It is like saying that at one time there was only one form of cooking and a great cook book was written telling how to cook. Centuries later there are 3 cook books. One for French Cuisine, another for Chinese dishes and another for North American Indians.

Each will say theirs is the true cook book. Now you can can not convince the American Indian that the French Cooking is the proper way to cook by explaining it through the French cook book. He will show you in his cook book the proper way to cook. That will be a repeated arguement between them until doomsday. so, it is with us.

We are each talking about different things, similar but not the same.

Well said Bros woodrow I wish I had your wisdom... except I wish to contrast... let's say if Muslims were the French cuisine not only would they accept the chinese but the north American Indians as well as legitimate dishes from credible sources.. whereas the chinese and north americans might go on a barrage of tastless insults on how the french are all a bunch of disillusioned hooligans ...

[جوري]

One does not evaluate the truth of a cook book without sampling the recipes. If the recipes make good food, then the cook book is good. If one does not live through the experience, the cook book probably was probably a general chemistry book rebound with the wrong cover.

Again well said.... and I couldn't agree more... I have already been through the catholic experience have you been through the Muslim one?

[Joe98]

As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall exchange them for fresh skins

I interpret that as;


One person has "a skin" Two or more have "skins". "When the skin has burnt through, God will grow it back again instantly so it will burn through again"


You interpret that as;

"Second and third degree burns. The prophet could not have known about that and therefore the Koran is a miracle and must be the word of God."

:giggling:

[dougmusr]

Well said Bros woodrow I wish I had your wisdom... except I wish to contrast... let's say if Muslims were the French cuisine not only would they accept the chinese but the north American Indians as well as legitimate dishes from credible sources.. whereas the chinese and north americans might go on a barrage of tastless insults on how the french are all a bunch of disillusioned hooligans ...

Actually, Muslims would look through all the cook books. Any recipes that could be slightly reinterpreted to sound like theirs would have been miraculously preserved. Any recipes that were the same would be prophetic. Any recipes that disagreed with theirs would be discarded.

[Woodrow]

Actually, Muslims would look through all the cook books. Any recipes that could be slightly reinterpreted to sound like theirs would have been miraculously preserved. Any recipes that were the same would be prophetic. Any recipes that disagreed with theirs would be discarded.

Does it not make sense that if all 3 came from the same source but 2 were changed the 2 changed ones would probably still have some truth in them.

[dougmusr]

Again well said.... and I couldn't agree more... I have already been through the catholic experience have you been through the Muslim one?

I would say that one has not been through the Catholic or Muslim experience until one dies a Catholic or Muslim. My wife was raised in the Catholic church. I was raised in the Methodist church. I attend a Southern Baptist church now.

As far as the Muslim experience, I am experiencing it vicariously from this message board. I have to admit that it is somewhat like being caught in a ping-pong match.

[dougmusr]

Does it not make sense that if all 3 came from the same source but 2 were changed the 2 changed ones would probably still have some truth in them.

Actually, if all the cookbooks claimed to be from the same source, yet contradicted each other and had completely different sytles of writing, I would probably doubt the source was the same at all.

[Woodrow]

Actually, if all the cookbooks claimed to be from the same source, yet contradicted each other and had completely different sytles of writing, I would probably doubt the source was the same at all.

The original book was unchanged, The writing styles varied in the interpretations and translations,
as those came from individuals attempting to write what they considered the ingrediants to be.

to change the train of thought would you not agree that both the Torah and the Qur'an have things in them are are also seen as being true in the Bible?

So it is with the Qur'an We do not see finding things in the Bible and the Torah as proof that the Qur'an is invalid.

[Joe98]

Doug is here!

Are you the same Doug who defeated Oxcart and Milk???

[dougmusr]

Doug is here!

Are you the same Doug who defeated Oxcart and Milk???

I did a search on Oxcart and Milk and found nothing. Should I homogenize the terms and try again?

to change the train of thought would you not agree that both the Torah and the Qur'an have things in them are are also seen as being true in the Bible?

I would expect there to be similarities since the Bible and Torah preceeded the Quran. If the differences between the Quran and the Bible were as small as the differences between the Gospels, I would have no trouble with them. The problem is that they are more than than that. They go to the very character of God Himself.

The other problem I see is that I find the argument that the Bible or Torah was intentionally altered to be illogical. I can give you a few reasons, which I am sure others have discussed before, and I don't claim to be Einstein.

The Bible includes unflatering facts about the characters involved. The stories are not sugar coated. Take the prophets. The Bible claims David committed adultry and then murder to cover it up. Solomon turned his back on God and worshipped idols. Jonah tried to avoid preaching in Ninevah. Noah got drunk and had sexual relations with his daughters. Jacob deceived his brother to steel the birthright. I could go on. On one of the posts on this website, the claim was made that the author of Genesis either falsified or confused Ishmael and Isaac because he was prone to Israeli bias and wanted to cast the Jews in a positive light. This is exactly my point. If the Bible was altered, we would have righteous superheros in it. Instead, the world can read it and find out how sin has infiltrated the world, and why redemption is necessary for mankind. That is why Christians believe the Bible when it says "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory".

In spite of claims to the contrary, I believe Islam teaches that one can obtain God's forgiveness by doing more good than bad. There is even something like purgatory. Evil people go to Hell until their sin is purged, then get into paradise.

As a Christian, I feel that it is Christ's sacrifice that pays the sin penalty, and that when one realizes what God did to purchase this forgiveness, one becomes free to do good out of gratitude and love. The word redemption carries the meaning of one purchasing a person from a slave market, and then setting the purchased slave free.

By the way, I don't think I have privledges to send private messages yet. I'll pray for your healing and comfort.

[dougmusr]

Noah got drunk and had sexual relations with his daughters.

I was wrong on this one. I think it was Lot that had relations with his daughters after Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed. Noah did get drunk, and one of his sones backed into his tent to cover him if I remember right.

[Woodrow]

I was wrong on this one. I think it was Lot that had relations with his daughters after Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed. Noah did get drunk, and one of his sones backed into his tent to cover him if I remember right.

That is the way I read it in the Bible also.

I would expect there to be similarities since the Bible and Torah preceeded the Quran. If the differences between the Quran and the Bible were as small as the differences between the Gospels, I would have no trouble with them. The problem is that they are more than than that. They go to the very character of God Himself

.

True, that can only be because at least one was drasticaly changed from the original word.

The other problem I see is that I find the argument that the Bible or Torah was intentionally altered to be illogical. I can give you a few reasons, which I am sure others have discussed before, and I don't claim to be Einstein.

Deliberatly may not necessarily be true, but the fact is they are different. I do not have a copy of the Torah however the Torah is the Pentatuch of the Bible(The First 5 Books). Both the first 5 Books of the Bible and the Torah should be identical. But, there are many differences besides the obvious translation difficulties. One or both was obviously changed..

The Bible includes unflatering facts about the characters involved. The stories are not sugar coated. Take the prophets. The Bible claims David committed adultry and then murder to cover it up. Solomon turned his back on God and worshipped idols. Jonah tried to avoid preaching in Ninevah. Noah got drunk and had sexual relations with his daughters. Jacob deceived his brother to steel the birthright. I could go on. On one of the posts on this website, the claim was made that the author of Genesis either falsified or confused Ishmael and Isaac because he was prone to Israeli bias and wanted to cast the Jews in a positive light. This is exactly my point. If the Bible was altered, we would have righteous superheros in it. Instead, the world can read it and find out how sin has infiltrated the world, and why redemption is necessary for mankind. That is why Christians believe the Bible when it says "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory

".

The Qur'an also has much of the same. We believe all men have sinned and will continue to sin.
We believe that the Prophets have atoned for their sins. In that sense they are sin free. (my wording may not be the same as the Qur'an, but that is my understanding Astragfirullah)

In spite of claims to the contrary, I believe Islam teaches that one can obtain God's forgiveness by doing more good than bad. There is even something like purgatory. Evil people go to Hell until their sin is purged, then get into paradise

.

Sermi correct, we believe we are commanded to do good works. But, God(swt) does not need our good works and none of us have the ability to earn our way into Jannah. Allah(swt) is the only one who can forgive and he is most knowing and the most merciful. We do not know what rewards or punishments we will receive, but we do have the assurance that we will be judged fairly and most mercfully. It will be his Judgement which determines what our punishments if any, will be and for how long.

As a Christian, I feel that it is Christ's sacrifice that pays the sin penalty, and that when one realizes what God did to purchase this forgiveness, one becomes free to do good out of gratitude and love. The word redemption carries the meaning of one purchasing a person from a slave market, and then setting the purchased slave free.

For that I will paraphrase you:

As a Muslim, I feel that it is Allah's (swt) Mercy that pays the sin penalty, and that when one realizes what God(swt) did to purchase this forgiveness, one becomes free to do good out of gratitude and love. The word redemption carries the meaning of one purchasing a person from a slave market, and then setting the purchased slave free. We return willingly as slaves of Allah(swt) to serve him out of love for him. He does not need us to serve him, We do so only because only He is worthy of our prayers, thoughts, deeds and worship.

By the way, I don't think I have privledges to send private messages yet. I'll pray for your healing and comfort.

And I thank you for your thoughts and prayers, they are appreciated. You should have PM privilages now. I believe the number of posts for them is 50, however, it may be 100 either way you either already have them or will soon. Inshallah.

[جوري]

Actually, Muslims would look through all the cook books. Any recipes that could be slightly reinterpreted to sound like theirs would have been miraculously preserved. Any recipes that were the same would be prophetic. Any recipes that disagreed with theirs would be discarded.

Sort of like when you get a revised 3rd edition that corrects the editorial mistakes made in the previous through no fault of the author but the print shop.... BTW the fundamentals are the same and have not changed
Believing in the oness of GOD
making constant prayers
fasting
giving Alms
when you have a religion that negates just one of these laws it is null and void... for why would God retract prayer, fast or Alms giving? or worst yet... why would he decided that he isn't one but three? and should take a son... who is to die for our sins? and when the son asks "eli eli lema sabtcheni" God the father ignores? It is NEVER in the nature of God to break a covenant... much less one with his supposed " only son" --:? GOD NEVER BREAKS A COVENANT!
:w:

[doodlebug]

So....bottom line is this, right?


In my search to explain things like the crucifixion, the appearance of Jesus to the apostles after the resurrection, the fact that Jesus states He is God, the fact that He places (I believe, as a Catholic) Peter in charge of His church, etc. etc.,

it is all going to come down to the fact that muslims question the bible's authenticity because it has been changed so many times and they accept the Qu'ran because it was written by Muhammed and has never been changed.


Is that a fair assessment? If so I will stop asking specific questions and get right to the core of the problem which is the authenticity of the bible.

In doing that, does anyone have references of books or websites I can go to which shed some light on how the bible was made in the first place? I know that Catholic monks did put it together but as far as what was included and what was not is what I'm looking for.

Thanks again. I think I'm all set for the original question in this thread.

[- Qatada -]

Hi doodlebug.


Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn't write the Qur'an, because Allaah Almighty says:


In Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".


The Qur'an was revealed the exact same way as it's prophecised within the Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."


The revelation was through Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) and the word Qur'an does mean Recitation, and this is how it was revealed.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his beloved family) in the Bible.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...sed-bible.html



Peace.

[*Hana*]

YUSUFALI: When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.



Sound like a vision from God turned his life around and he became a messenger.



Crucifixion if I understand it correctly was a public execution in a highly visible place. The fact the apostles fled does not mean that others did not witness the crucifixion, nor that the apostles did not watch from a distance. Acts says it was widly known.

Lk 24:13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them.
16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. 17 And He said to them, "What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?" 18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, "Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?" 19 And He said to them, "What things?" So they said to Him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 "and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 "Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 "When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 "And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see."
25 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

I didn't mean the Apostles were not alive in the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh. :confused: I was referring to the authors of the Bible...Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Obviously the chosen apostles were alive it's just unfortunate they didn't preserve anything in writing.

Public execution or not, it does not change the fact that NONE of His chosen Apostles stayed with Him, it doesn't change the fact Peter denied Him, and it doesn't change the fact not ONE wrote about it. Why? Because they didn't see it. They only heard about it and believed what they heard. You are trying to twist it to make it sound like not one person witnessed someone being crucified, but I'm not going to allow you to do that. I am referring to His own, "beloved" Apostles. They ran, they forsook Him and they accepted the fact He was killed only to be dumbfounded later when Jesus, pbuh, approached them as a man very much alive and not as a ghost as they were expecting.

No, Paul doesn't sound like someone who received a vision at all. He offers varying stories of his "vision" in the bible. He went into hiding for 3 years...perhaps to write "his" gospel? To become a messenger you receive inspiration from God, yet he tells you, often, his words are not always inspired. Now you have decide which are and which are not if he doesn't specify. He was rejected by the true followers of Jesus, pbuh, for preaching false doctrine. Those taught directly by Jesus, pbuh, would surely know His teachings much better than someone who spent his time trying to kill Him and never bothered to go to those who could teach him the correct message.

Relating stories from oral tradition is worthless when you can't scrutinize and confirm the authenticity of the most recent author, let alone where the story began. Can you tell the Christian world with 100% certainty who wrote all the books of the bible? Nope, you can't. I can also write what I heard about Jesus, pbuh, or what I heard about your own great-grandfather....does that make me an authority when I can't authenticate my sources?

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

It seems quite clear. The apostles were human and outside of Lazarus, had not experienced a ressurection. The apostles were disciples of Christ, meaning they were in training. Much of their learning came after remembering Christ's words and reflecting on past events. I do not find fear to be an abnormal reaction to seeing someone you thought had been crucified alive. (just to clarify something for you. Crucified means someone died as a result of crucifixion. There is no word to describe someone that survived being crucified. So being "crucified alive" is not correct terminology as you cannot crucify a dead person. Hope that makes sense. :) )

The problem here, is that according the Bible, Lazarus was NOT resurrected. To be resurrected, you become immortal - a spirit, like the Angels. See the bible for your definition....it is quite clear. Lazarus, through God's will, was brought back to life....as a MAN....not a ghost.

Why did the Apostles think He was crucified? They believed what the Jews told them. They believed they were seeing a ghost, not a man. The point is, your own bible is telling you Jesus,pbuh, never died at the hands of the jews or by crucifixion.


There are many who eat without needing to eat. For spirits, it may be part of the enjoyment of Heaven, unless the Quran is incorrect.

036.057
YUSUFALI: (Every) fruit (enjoyment) will be there for them; they shall have whatever they call for;
PICKTHAL: Theirs the fruit (of their good deeds) and theirs (all) that they ask;
SHAKIR: They shall have fruits therein, and they shall have whatever they desire.

You will have to question your bible on that point. You obviously agree, your bible is in error? Why would you use the Qur'an to try to prove the bible when you don't believe anything in the Qur'an? I am using YOUR bible as proofs to what I say. I don't offer the Qur'an as proof because you don't believe in it. Can you explain why the bible contradicts itself in this matter?

Actually He was trying to convince them He had risen from the dead. He is still trying to convince Muslims of this today.

No, He wasn't. Why did He tell Mary Magdalene He wasn't dead? Why did He tell Thomas to come touch Him to prove He was very much alive because spirits do not have skin and bone as He had? Why did He ask for food? Why was He in disguise at the tomb when He spoke with Mary Magdalene? If he was already dead, who was He hiding from? He can't die twice so why hide?

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

i'm more confused now than i was before. I thought muslims believe that he was taken up to heaven before being tortured/crucified. If so, how would he appear to the apostles alive?

And....to the best of my knowledge, all 12 apostles were there with Jesus at the last supper so of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were alive when he was alive.

Again...I"m not understanding what exactly you all believe because one person is saying one thing and another is saying something different.

Peace Doodlebug:

We don't know at exactly what point Jesus, pbuh, was taken up, but for sure we do not believe He died.

Yes, the Apostles were obviously alive, but those Apostels are not, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Most Christian and Biblical scholars would tell you these were not the Apostles of Jesus, pbuh. These writings came long after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up and these authors are unknown. No one knows for sure who Mark, Luke, Matthew and John were at all.

When I speak to someone who doesn't believe in the Qur'an, I do not offer the Qur'an as proofs to what I say....why would I do that? I try to speak to the person using the proofs and/or errors within the bible. Sorry to have caused you confusion. :)

Peace to you,
Hana

[*Hana*]

I wonder how eskimos would interpret this verse?

People who dwell in the hot desert would find this verse very attractive. It is clear this verse is directed at people who live in hot climates - the Middle East.

This means the message

1 - did not come from God or;

2 - God forgot about those who live in cold countries.

lol, as someone who lives in a cold country (Which is cold only during the winter), this also sounds rather comfortable for me as well. Ummmm, even the inuit (eskimos), experience hot weather. :) Why would anyone want to be always cold or always hot? Ahhhh, the beauty of moderate temperatures. :)

Peace,
Hana

[جوري]

Hana... I enjoy tremendously your posts ... but some threads aren't worth the effort ... for very obvious reasons
Regards

[doodlebug]

I didn't mean the Apostles were not alive in the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh. :confused: I was referring to the authors of the Bible...Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Obviously the chosen apostles were alive it's just unfortunate they didn't preserve anything in writing.

um....Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were 4 of the 12......:rollseyes

Public execution or not, it does not change the fact that NONE of His chosen Apostles stayed with Him, it doesn't change the fact Peter denied Him, and it doesn't change the fact not ONE wrote about it. Why? Because they didn't see it. They only heard about it and believed what they heard. You are trying to twist it to make it sound like not one person witnessed someone being crucified, but I'm not going to allow you to do that. I am referring to His own, "beloved" Apostles. They ran, they forsook Him and they accepted the fact He was killed only to be dumbfounded later when Jesus, pbuh, approached them as a man very much alive and not as a ghost as they were expecting.

.....John was at Mary's side when Jesus died on the cross. He also is one of the 4 that wrote about it. I don't know where you are getting your information but it's confusing the heck out of me. lol

[doodlebug]

Peace Doodlebug:

We don't know at exactly what point Jesus, pbuh, was taken up, but for sure we do not believe He died.

Yes, the Apostles were obviously alive, but those Apostels are not, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Most Christian and Biblical scholars would tell you these were not the Apostles of Jesus, pbuh. These writings came long after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up and these authors are unknown. No one knows for sure who Mark, Luke, Matthew and John were at all.

That is so untrue....I am without words at this point. John was the famous John the Baptist. Any scholar worth his/her weight in gold will tell you this!!!

[جوري]

John the baptist Aka prophet (yahya) was beheaded as a wedding gift for the Jewess Salome who married her uncle... John was against the incestual relationship ... he didn't write the bible... and he is different from the apostle John you speak of

[جوري]

look what I found....




Did John the Baptist die after Jesus?
A work in progress by
Latest update: 20 October 2005
PTET weblog | e-mail PTET



Introduction
This page looks at an apparent anomaly between Biblical account of the life of Jesus and the Jewish History of Josephus. In short, Josephus seems to date the death of John the Baptist to 36CE, the last year of Pilate's tenure in Judaea, and years after the "accepted" death of Jesus Christ.

However, a closer look at the text reveals that Josephus's use of dates can be quite unreliable - and therefore we cannot be sure of when his reference to John the Baptists death occurred.

(I am grateful to Tektonics for providing useful information on this matter in their article Josephus vs. Mark on Herod vs. John. The opinions in this article are, of course, mine and not theirs).



Dating John the Baptist from the Bible
The Gospel according to Luke is unusually specific about the date of John the Baptist's teaching:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]
Historical records are available for all of the rulers mentioned:
Tiberius Caesar was joint ruler of Rome from 12 CE, and came into power in his own right in 14 CE. Therefore the fifteen year of his reign must have been between 26-29 CE.
Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea between 26-36 CE.
Herod Anitpas and his brother Philip ruled until their deaths in 39 CE and 34 CE respectively.
Annas was high-priest between 6-15 CE, and was apparently still influential during the tenure of his son-in-law Caiaphas in 18-37 CE.
According to Luke, therefore, John The Baptist's ministry must have began around 26-29 CE. Further, Luke 3:23 states that Jesus Christ was about thirty years old at this time.

It is commonly calculated that Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 CE or (more likely) 3 April 33 CE. (Sir Isaac Newton preferred a date of 23 April 34 CE).



Dating John the Baptist's death from Josephus
Josephus mentions John The Baptist in his Antiquities at 18.5.2 116-119.
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." [18.5.2 116-119]
In his web page John the Baptist and Josephus G. J. Goldberg writes:
"A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him..."

"...it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE..."

"According to Josephus, John the Baptist is arrested around this time and killed shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, this is after the traditional dating of Jesus death, but traditional also says that Jesus began his ministry around the time John died."
Goldberg considers explanations for this 36 CE dating by the scholar Christiane Saulnier, but concludes:
"Considering the arguments as a whole, Saulnier does propose a possible way in which Josephus' chronology can be reconciled with the gospels'. For believers in the basic accuracy of the gospels, that is enough. But if one regards the gospels' dating as suspect and solely works from Josephus' text, then Saulnier's discussion pushes the date back some but does not produce any firm evidence identifying the date... before the early 30's CE. The reader can choose between these alternatives according to his or her own predisposition. "
The 36 CE date is of interest not only because it is two or three years later than the accepted date for Christ's death; but also because Pontius Pilate's term as governor of Judaea ended in that year.

This problem with dating has long been recognised by Christian writers. The 1902 Catholic Encyclopedia has this explanation for the discrepancy:
"...it should be remembered that [Josephus]... is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention."
This argument is expanded by the Fundamentalist apologetics website Tektonics:
"...It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7)."
This does indeed seem to throw the datings apparently given by Josephus into question.



Conclusion
It seems that either Josephus is wrong, or the Bible (or both!). The very specific dating given in Luke 3:1-3 is not repeated in the other Gospels, and the authorship of Luke is uncertain.

Readers may also be interested to note that the early Christian writer St. Irenaeus (c. 125-191 CE) wrote that apostlistic tradition taught that Jesus was around fifty when he died - and that he preached for many more than the three years commonly attributed. If trus, this would imply that Jesus was either born well before 1 BCE, or that he died well after the time of Pilate.

my conclusion:
many problems with dates many problems with the stories told er written....

[glo]

John the baptist Aka prophet (yahya) was beheaded as a wedding gift for the Jewess Salome who married her uncle... John was against the incestual relationship ... he didn't write the bible... and he is different from the apostle John you speak of

You are right, Ambrosia

John the baptist came before Jesus' ministry started, and he was beheaded before Jesus' death.

Doodlebug made a mistake. That can happen. Let's forgive her, shall we? :)

I don't usually go for cutting and pasting, but it is getting rather late, so I will for now:

The Gospel of John states who ‘the writer’ is. He is ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ who leaned on His breast (i.e. lay next to Him) at the Last Supper (John 21.24 with verse 20). This demonstrates that it must have been an Apostle, and all the evidence in the Gospel points to John, who is never directly mentioned, while ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ regularly is in places where it is clear that the person spoken of is one of the inner band. Compare also how John the baptiser is called simply ‘John’ because there was no need to distinguish him from the Apostle, when the Apostle was the author.
[...]
We have definite documentary evidence from a papyrus fragment found in Egypt (the Rylands fragment) that John’s Gospel existed in Egypt before 140 AD, and it is also utilised a number of times in the Egerton Papyrus 2 (125-140 AD), as well as being quoted by Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110 AD). Taking into account that the Gospel had to have been copied a number of times and then had to have gained sufficient reputation to be used in Egypt, this ties in with the strong tradition, which few would doubt, that it was written towards the end of John’s long life in Ephesus at the end of the first century, which is the testimony of all the early Christian writers. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp...writers1.html)

I hope this is informative.

Peace. :)

[doodlebug]

thanks

[جوري]

You are right, Ambrosia

John the baptist came before Jesus' ministry started, and he was beheaded before Jesus' death.

Doodlebug made a mistake. That can happen. Let's forgive her, shall we? :)


Peace. :)

This isn't a contest--- we are all here to learn---I hold no grudges I assure you! --- John the Baptise wasn't called "simply john" since jesus spoke aramiac... his name was "yo7na" or "ya7ya" son of zachria had a very unique name....

[dougmusr]

(just to clarify something for you. Crucified means someone died as a result of crucifixion. There is no word to describe someone that survived being crucified. So being "crucified alive" is not correct terminology as you cannot crucify a dead person. Hope that makes sense. )

I left out a comma.

The problem here, is that according the Bible, Lazarus was NOT resurrected. To be resurrected, you become immortal - a spirit, like the Angels. See the bible for your definition....it is quite clear. Lazarus, through God's will, was brought back to life....as a MAN....not a ghost.

I would say to resurrect means to bring back to life. I would say Lazarus was resurrected, but he did not do it under his own power. Christ said He had the authority to lay His life down, and to take it back up. If He did not come back in human form He was not raised from the dead. His eating was therefore done to show the disciples He was fully alive, not a spirit, angel, or ghost. I find this to be fully consistant behavior.

Entry Word: resurrect
Function: verb
Text: to bring back to life, practice, or activity

Main Entry: res·ur·rect
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from resurrection
1 : to raise from the dead

Mk 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered.' 28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."

Why did the Apostles think He was crucified? They believed what the Jews told them. They believed they were seeing a ghost, not a man. The point is, your own bible is telling you Jesus,pbuh, never died at the hands of the jews or by crucifixion.

I would suppose they believed what everyone in Jerusalem believed, and the fact that they fled proves nothing about their behavior immediately after their flight.

You will have to question your bible on that point. You obviously agree, your bible is in error? Why would you use the Qur'an to try to prove the bible when you don't believe anything in the Qur'an? I am using YOUR bible as proofs to what I say. I don't offer the Qur'an as proof because you don't believe in it. Can you explain why the bible contradicts itself in this matter?

I use the Quran because you believe it is Gods word, just as you use the Bible because you know as a Christian I believe it is God's word and therefore has authority.

A better question is, why would you use the Bible in your proofs when you feel it is in error and have no way of knowing where the errors are since you feel there is no original to compare it against?

[*Hana*]

I left out a comma.

Okie dokie

I would say to resurrect means to bring back to life. I would say Lazarus was resurrected, but he did not do it under his own power. Christ said He had the authority to lay His life down, and to take it back up. If He did not come back in human form He was not raised from the dead. His eating was therefore done to show the disciples He was fully alive, not a spirit, angel, or ghost. I find this to be fully consistant behavior.

Entry Word: resurrect
Function: verb
Text: to bring back to life, practice, or activity

Main Entry: res·ur·rect
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from resurrection
1 : to raise from the dead

Will you please provide the biblical definition as explained by Jesus?
Mk 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered.' 28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."



I would suppose they believed what everyone in Jerusalem believed, and the fact that they fled proves nothing about their behavior immediately after their flight.

Well, for me it proves they did not witness anything and their belief was based on heresay. Their fear tells me they truly believed they were seeing a ghost.


I use the Quran because you believe it is Gods word, just as you use the Bible because you know as a Christian I believe it is God's word and therefore has authority.

A better question is, why would you use the Bible in your proofs when you feel it is in error and have no way of knowing where the errors are since you feel there is no original to compare it against?

Yes I do believe the Qur'an is the word of God, but you don't....so you are quoting something you believe was totally man made to try to defend your statement. However, we are discussing biblical text here and I am providing proofs from your own book. As Muslims we do believe the bible still contains some of the true words of God, and when the errors (regardless of how they got there), are removed, it brings the bible much closer to the revelations God originally sent. There are no original biblical documents, unfortunately. But, the problem is you are quoting from the Qur'an which you don't believe contains any words of God. As a Muslim, I could tell you, "yes, this part of your bible is true because the Qur'an tells me it is." or "this part is false because the Qur'an says so." That would be so easy....but, would you accept it? Of course not. So, for me to quote from the Qur'an is pointless. If, however, I can show you where the bible contradicts itself if should be proof enough that God's word was corrupted by man, either intentionally or unintentionally, as we all know God does not make mistakes.
I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. I'm responding to another post and flipping back and forth. If it's not clear, please let me know and I will try to make it more understandable. :)

Peace to you,
Hana

[*Hana*]

um....Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were 4 of the 12......:rollseyes



.....John was at Mary's side when Jesus died on the cross. He also is one of the 4 that wrote about it. I don't know where you are getting your information but it's confusing the heck out of me. lol

Peace Doodlebug:

Mark: This Gospel is anonymous, is not dated, and it has no direct information about the historical, social, or political context in which it was written. Because specific information about where this gospel comes from doesn't exist, scholars have had to try to figure out what, if anything, might be said about it with some authority and authenticity.

Everything that has been claimed about its authenticity has been assumed, and interpreted by comparing what we do know about early Christians and the text itself.

The author of Mark does not identify himself, but there are many "Marks" noted throughout the bible and any one of them could have been the author. It is believed the stories told in this book were passed down and retold through many different people. Eventually, someone put it into the form similar to what is seen today.

Matthew: The author of this gospel does not identify himself either, but that the Apostle Matthew wrote it is in doubt because the text was originally in Greek rather than Aramaic, it relies heavily on Mark and doesn't possess the charactoristics commonly used with eyewitness accounts.

However, that being said, there is speculation that a Gospel of Matthew written by the Apostle in Aramaic did exist at one time but has since been lost. It is possible this author, who wrote originally in Greek, used the stories passed down from that gospel to create his own. Perhaps in an attempt to salvage something from that time. Unfortunately, because there is no way to determine who actually wrote this book, there is no way to verify the authenticity of what is written or how accurately it was translated and retold to this author.

Luke: The author of this book describes how he prepared himself to write it. This implies he was not an eyewitness to events but rather got his information from other sources. Luke 1:1-3: 1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

John: This gospel is the most contraversial both in the authorship and textual writings. The writings are vastly different from those of the synoptics and this causes concern for biblical and christian scholars. Traditionally, it had been accepted John was the son of Zebedee and who many believe is the "disciple whom Jesus loved". This would definitely make him an eyewitness, however, this is very unlikely. To begin, nowhere in the gospel is the author said to be named John. Second, this "beloved disciple" is only found in John and seems to be absent from all 3 of the synoptics, and during very crucial times such as "the last supper", "the empty tomb" and "the crucifixion". Isn't it odd the 3 synoptics differ so greatly regarding these very critical events?

The beloved disciple is also often referred to as "the other disciple", so there is evidence in John 21:2 regarding those present at the resurrection at the Sea of Tiberias that this "other disciple" is not John, son of Zebedee. Those in attendance were described, in John 21:2, as Peter, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee and two "other disciples". As it was normal not to mention the name of this beloved disciple, it would stand to reason that he was one of the two "other disciples" and not one of the sons of Zebedee.

Prior to John 20:30-31, there is nothing indicating that the author is the beloved disciple, and John 19:35, seems to confirm that: He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth --that you also may believe.

This is written in the 3rd person, it is not written by the actual eyewitness. If you choose to accept this gospel's version of the crucifixion, then you will see that in John 19:26 it says that the beloved disciple was the only disciple to witness the crucifixion. The "HE" used in John 20:30-31 seems to describe the beloved disciple which would mean someone else was writing about him.

Peace to you,
Hana

[dougmusr]

Lazarus was raised from the dead and sat at the table. One would think he intended to eat.

Jn 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him.

This wording sure seems similar to me.

Jn 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

It seems rather a common practice of Jesus after miracles of healing, that He commands the person be given something to eat. It also seems to be true that sick people tend to lose interest in eating. Thus eating is one sign of a return to normal daily living.

[*Hana*]

Lazarus was raised from the dead and sat at the table. One would think he intended to eat.

Jn 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him.

This wording sure seems similar to me.

Jn 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

It seems rather a common practice of Jesus after miracles of healing, that He commands the person be given something to eat. It also seems to be true that sick people tend to lose interest in eating. Thus eating is one sign of a return to normal daily living.

Peace Doug:

Well, now we have a dilema.

Lazarus, and many others, were resurrected, by the will of God. They required food, drink, etc. (all human functions), to maintain their life. But, they all had one thing in common....they all had to die. They were resurrected back to their former, mortal selves. This was not a spiritual resurrection. The following from Luke 20:34-36 explains a spiritual resurrection:

34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. 36 For they can't die any more, for they are like the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

As far as I know, Lazarus and the others are no longer living, so they "died again", which means there is obviously a difference between a mortal resurrection and a spiritual resurrection.

So, we now know, Jesus, pbuh, was not spiritually resurrected when He told the disciples to touch him because spirits do not have flesh and bones as He had. Therefore, I have to ask you: When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be spiritually resurrected to not only save you from your sins, but to be "rejoined" as the 3rd member of the triunion?

Peace to you,
Hana

[doodlebug]

Thanks again. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because for some strange reason it's getting too emotional for me. It's not what anyone has said really, but rather I think if I am going to proceed with my looking into the muslim faith, I will need to do it with my fiance since I'm finding I need extra tlc, the more I learn.

Thanks though.

[snakelegs]

as far as i know, jews do not believe in jesus in the first place. in this way, they differ from both muslims and christians.

[dougmusr]

So, we now know, Jesus, pbuh, was not spiritually resurrected when He told the disciples to touch him because spirits do not have flesh and bones as He had. Therefore, I have to ask you: When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be spiritually resurrected to not only save you from your sins, but to be "rejoined" as the 3rd member of the triunion?

I would like to claim to have all the answers, but I don't have them, so I must conjecture at this point.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

I believe that there will be people alive when Christ returns. I don't believe He is going to kill the living to resurrect them. Those who are alive will be given incorruptable bodies, bypassing physical death. Those who are dead will be resurrected, and then given incorruptable bodies. Then all will meet God for judgement. Some will be sent to heaven, some to hell.

[dougmusr]

Therefore, I have to ask you: When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be spiritually resurrected to not only save you from your sins, but to be "rejoined" as the 3rd member of the triunion?

I forgot to answer this. I feel Christ experienced what all will experience based on the above verse. He was transformed in the twinkling of an eye and up He went.

[dougmusr]

Thanks again. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because for some strange reason it's getting too emotional for me. It's not what anyone has said really, but rather I think if I am going to proceed with my looking into the muslim faith, I will need to do it with my fiance since I'm finding I need extra tlc, the more I learn.

Thanks though.

I'll miss you. There are some good discussions on this board, but I spend too much time on here and am thinking about cutting back as well. I doubt that I will get any reverts to rerevert, but I need to learn others beliefs. By a Quran and study a way, (the read the Bible and study The Way).

[*Hana*]

I forgot to answer this. I feel Christ experienced what all will experience based on the above verse. He was transformed in the twinkling of an eye and up He went.

Peace to you Doug:

Regarding your previous post quoting the biblical verse it does confirm the difference between 2 types of resurrection. The verse is referring to the spiritual resurrection.

We have a similar understanding now it seems. As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus, pbuh, died, but we do believe He was taken up and will come again. Based on His own description of a spiritual resurrection, I don't believe Jesus, pbuh, in the biblical text died either, and was trying to show that He didn't die, but He was taken up and will come again.

I'd like to thank you for having this discussion, it was very interesting for me and I learned a lot. :)

Peace to you,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Thanks again. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because for some strange reason it's getting too emotional for me. It's not what anyone has said really, but rather I think if I am going to proceed with my looking into the muslim faith, I will need to do it with my fiance since I'm finding I need extra tlc, the more I learn.

Thanks though.

Peace to you Doodlebug:

It's not at all strange to get emotional when discussing faith. Oh man, I used to be a mess. lol But, comparative religion is good as it not only gives us knowledge but teaches us to be tolerant when we have a better understanding of others' beliefs. I sincerely hope you continue with your learning. :)

Peace,
Hana

[Woodrow]

I'll miss you. There are some good discussions on this board, but I spend too much time on here and am thinking about cutting back as well. I doubt that I will get any reverts to rerevert, but I need to learn others beliefs. By a Quran and study a way, (the read the Bible and study The Way).

Quite true. It is always a good idea to learn all about another belief. It is difficult to discuss matters without a mutualy acceptable basis of communication. Many people approach other beliefs only with the knowledge of their own faith. They do not realise that the source they are using probably is not considered to be a believable source by the other person. Your openess and willingness to discuss through reason and not emotion is appreciated. We may always disagree, but we can disagree with respect.

[glo]

Thanks again. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because for some strange reason it's getting too emotional for me. It's not what anyone has said really, but rather I think if I am going to proceed with my looking into the muslim faith, I will need to do it with my fiance since I'm finding I need extra tlc, the more I learn.

Thanks though.

Doodlebug, I have sent you a private message. :)

Peace.

[MuslimCONVERT]

We do not know for certain at which point the change took place. I can see the logic that it would make sense for the change to have taken place before the torture. There is no actually verification as to who was crucified, except that it was not I'sa(a.s.). I've heard speculation that it may have been Judas.

I agree that God(swt) will not deceive us. So in my mind it must have been some condition in which the people actually deceived thenselves. I was not there so I can not say how God(swt) did this without it being deceit by him. I can only trust in Allah(swt) and if there is ever any reason I truly have a need to know I will learn it, Inshallah.

Salaam Woodrow. I think the issue is, when does something become "deciet?" -For example, is it deceit for Allah (swt) to help an army of three hundred defeat an army of a thousand? After all the army of 1,000 chose to believe that the army of 300 was not helped by God, and thus decieved themselves into believing that God was not going to help them. (Of course I am referring to the battle of Badr.) But this deciet was only on the part of the Meccans, who chose not to believe in the Qu'ran which promised the Muslims victory. I believe it is the same scenario with Isa (Saas). Because Pharisees and Romans and so on chose not to believe in him as Nabi and Messiah, they only decieved themselves. In choosing not to believe in Isa (saas), they also chose not to believe that Allah (swt) would help him escape their plans. It's kinda like a kid only seeing what he wants to see. If they chose Isa as their Prophet, and Allah (Swt) as their Rabb, this would have ended their self deciet... but the choice they made left them further wandering in the dark, as Al-Qu'ran says. This is my understanding of the situation. Astagfhur Allah.

[Woodrow]

Salaam Woodrow. I think the issue is, when does something become "deciet?" -For example, is it deceit for Allah (swt) to help an army of three hundred defeat an army of a thousand? After all the army of 1,000 chose to believe that the army of 300 was not helped by God, and thus decieved themselves into believing that God was not going to help them. (Of course I am referring to the battle of Badr.) But this deciet was only on the part of the Meccans, who chose not to believe in the Qu'ran which promised the Muslims victory. I believe it is the same scenario with Isa (Saas). Because Pharisees and Romans and so on chose not to believe in him as Nabi and Messiah, they only decieved themselves. In choosing not to believe in Isa (saas), they also chose not to believe that Allah (swt) would help him escape their plans. It's kinda like a kid only seeing what he wants to see. If they chose Isa as their Prophet, and Allah (Swt) as their Rabb, this would have ended their self deciet... but the choice they made left them further wandering in the dark, as Al-Qu'ran says. This is my understanding of the situation. Astagfhur Allah.

It is an interesting thought. However, I do not believe Allah(swt) is deceitfull. All comes to be the result of our own choices. If it seems Allah(swt) has made a self destructive choice to be the best one and we are destroyed for taking that choice, it was our own inner arrogance that made us see what we wanted to see.

This is a poor analogy: Years back NYC had a big strike by the trash haulers. The people had no means of disposing of their trash with out driving many miles to the dump. Some people took to wrpping their refuse in gift paper and leaving it in the back of the car. It would always be stolen fairly soon. Is that deceit or were the theives deceived by their own wickedness?

[dougmusr]

I still say it is not possible to deceive oneself. Nevertheless, if Jesus was taken up to protect Him from crucifixion, what would be the necessity of the deception?

One could certainly say that mobs tend to behave in an irrational way and could attack bystanders much like the Rodney King induced riots in LA led to assults on innocent bystanders.

One also has to ask, if the crowd was so mad at Jesus that they wanted to kill Him, what caused it? As a Christian obviously I would say He claimed to be the Son of God and the I AM of Moses. Apparently this message was as unpopular to the Jews then as it is to the Jews and Muslims today.

Entry Word: deceive
Function: verb
Text: to cause to believe what is untrue <he went to great lengths to deceive his younger brother about the nature of his new job at the mall>
Synonyms beguile, bluff, cozen, delude, dupe, fool, gull, have, hoax, hoodwink, humbug, misguide, misinform, mislead, snow, string along, take in, trick
Related Words cheat, chisel, defraud, fleece, gyp, hustle, rook, swindle

[doodlebug]

ok i'm back. lol

this is addicting.

good point......why did the crowds want to kill him?

[MuslimCONVERT]

I still say it is not possible to deceive oneself. Nevertheless, if Jesus was taken up to protect Him from crucifixion, what would be the necessity of the deception?

One could certainly say that mobs tend to behave in an irrational way and could attack bystanders much like the Rodney King induced riots in LA led to assults on innocent bystanders.

One also has to ask, if the crowd was so mad at Jesus that they wanted to kill Him, what caused it? As a Christian obviously I would say He claimed to be the Son of God and the I AM of Moses. Apparently this message was as unpopular to the Jews then as it is to the Jews and Muslims today.

Entry Word: deceive
Function: verb
Text: to cause to believe what is untrue <he went to great lengths to deceive his younger brother about the nature of his new job at the mall>
Synonyms beguile, bluff, cozen, delude, dupe, fool, gull, have, hoax, hoodwink, humbug, misguide, misinform, mislead, snow, string along, take in, trick
Related Words cheat, chisel, defraud, fleece, gyp, hustle, rook, swindle

Salaam. It is quite possible to decieve oneself. I believe it's called Megalomania and is an actual disorder. (I may have the word wrong but it is a very common disorder.)

Why did the crowd want Jesus (saas) executed? -Because he claimed his mission was from God and that gave him authority. Authority to criticize the corrupt Pharisees. Thus the Pharisees chose not to believe in him and to incite people against him. Thus people wanted him executed.

[dougmusr]

Salaam. It is quite possible to decieve oneself. I believe it's called Megalomania and is an actual disorder. (I may have the word wrong but it is a very common disorder.)

Why did the crowd want Jesus (saas) executed? -Because he claimed his mission was from God and that gave him authority. Authority to criticize the corrupt Pharisees. Thus the Pharisees chose not to believe in him and to incite people against him. Thus people wanted him executed.

I looked up the word Megalomania.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

The religious leaders might have applied this word to Christ since He claimed to be the Son of God, to have the power to forgive sins, etc. I would be reluctant to apply it to the crowd though. Psychopathological conditions I would think would be applied to those people who behave outside the norm. It is unlikely that there would have been enough Megalomaniacs in Jerusalem to riot and get the Roman govornment to crucify someone without verifying his identity. In any case, delusional fantasies are not self-deception, unless you are saying a person having them made a choice to do so.

[MuslimCONVERT]

I looked up the word Megalomania.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

The religious leaders might have applied this word to Christ since He claimed to be the Son of God, to have the power to forgive sins, etc. I would be reluctant to apply it to the crowd though. Psychopathological conditions I would think would be applied to those people who behave outside the norm. It is unlikely that there would have been enough Megalomaniacs in Jerusalem to riot and get the Roman govornment to crucify someone without verifying his identity. In any case, delusional fantasies are not self-deception, unless you are saying a person having them made a choice to do so.

It turns out I had the word wrong, it's called mythomania. (I always get those two confused.) There are two types of Mythomania. One is like compulsive lying. The other is a state in which individuals believe their own lies. The psychological reasons this can occur are many, but the most common is when someone cannot accept a certain reality because it is detrimental to them, and so they are in a position where they must either accept that which is detrimental, or deny the truth. When faced with such a difficult situation, a person's psyche often cannot take it and will ultimately believe the easiest thing there is to believe, whether true or not. Thus we arrive at the category of mythomania #2. Mythomania is not an uncommon "mania." -When we think of Mania's we think of people running around in the streets completely mentally disturbed. In fact almost all people have one sort of mania or another that kicks in (and usually goes away) at various points in our lives. So to say that this was mass psychosis on the part of the Jews is of course fantastic... but to say that they were a group of people who would be in a difficult position were they to accept that Jesus (saas) actually had a message from God, and so their stubborn personalities (biblically speaking) found it easier to "believe the lie" (the lie being that Christ did NOT have a message from God) -this is not so fantastic.

[dougmusr]

...but to say that they were a group of people who would be in a difficult position were they to accept that Jesus (saas) actually had a message from God, and so their stubborn personalities (biblically speaking) found it easier to "believe the lie" (the lie being that Christ did NOT have a message from God)

This of course presumes the Jewish leaders recognized the truth and made a choice to disbelieve it. It could also be just as easily be applied to Christians and Muslims today since we all have to make decisions about what is true and what is false, and failure to change belief could be interpreted as stubborness by one party, and spiritual strength by the other.

As a Christian I believe Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, as a Muslim you believe He did not. As a Muslim you believe Muhammed was a prophet sent by God, and as a Christian I believe he was not. Obviously one or the other is true. From your perspective, my failure to accept Muhammed might convince you that I am stubborn and choosing to believe a lie. From my perspective, the opposite could be true.

[Woodrow]

This of course presumes the Jewish leaders recognized the truth and made a choice to disbelieve it. It could also be just as easily be applied to Christians and Muslims today since we all have to make decisions about what is true and what is false, and failure to change belief could be interpreted as stubborness by one party, and spiritual strength by the other.

As a Christian I believe Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, as a Muslim you believe He did not. As a Muslim you believe Muhammed was a prophet sent by God, and as a Christian I believe he was not. Obviously one or the other is true. From your perspective, my failure to accept Muhammed might convince you that I am stubborn and choosing to believe a lie. From my perspective, the opposite could be true.

That is very true.It all comes down to which is true. I have seen more then enough proof to convince me that the Qur'an is true. I am totaly convinced the Qur'an is true. some of the proofs I have seen are the satements in the Qur'an just now being proven when at the time of Muhammad there was no physical way a man could know they existed. I also see the anger of people when you tell them the Qur'an is true. It is as if a shield of blindness has been placed over them by shaitan. The fact they can not see the Qur'an is a proof to me that it is true. There are more proofs I have seen.

[QuranStudy]

Excellent debate between Dr. Zakir Naik and Pastor Rukknudinn on this very topic

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...kir+Naik+Jesus (Part 1)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...kir+Naik+Jesus (Part 2)

Peace.

[dougmusr]

That is very true.It all comes down to which is true. I have seen more then enough proof to convince me that the Qur'an is true. I am totaly convinced the Qur'an is true. some of the proofs I have seen are the satements in the Qur'an just now being proven when at the time of Muhammad there was no physical way a man could know they existed. I also see the anger of people when you tell them the Qur'an is true. It is as if a shield of blindness has been placed over them by shaitan. The fact they can not see the Qur'an is a proof to me that it is true. There are more proofs I have seen.

If one measure of the truth of scripture is the antagonism it generates in the nonbeliever, then consider the reactions by many Muslims on this message board to Christian questions and postings and on that basis reconsider the Bible.

[Woodrow]

If one measure of the truth of scripture is the antagonism it generates in the nonbeliever, then consider the reactions by many Muslims on this message board to Christian questions and postings and on that basis reconsider the Bible.

That is my own measure. I will not consider it to be reliable on it's own or applicable in all cases. On here I do not use that as a guideline when Christians get angry at references to the Qur'an.

On forums the biggest problem I see with the anger in either direction is the result of the exurberance of youth and the lack of debating skills. I would not use that as a guideline except in a face to face confrontation and with some knowledge of the person's abilities.

[doodlebug]

I'm sorry...did someone answer my question on why they wanted to kill Jesus in the first place? And if it was because they thought he said he was God, why didn't he just refute it, if it wasn't true?

[Woodrow]

I'm sorry...did someone answer my question on why they wanted to kill Jesus in the first place? And if it was because they thought he said he was God, why didn't he just refute it, if it wasn't true?

The reason they wanted to kill I'sa(as) will vary depending on what sources you read. From the Christian sources I have read it will vary with which denomination you belong to.

It seem that a large number of denominations say the Jew's condemned him for Blasphemy by him saying he was the Son of God.

Some denominations say that he was condemned for proclaiming he was the King of the Jews and that he was attempting to overthrow the government.

There are a few other teachings by various denominations but they are similar to those two.

As Muslims we do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be God(swt) or the Son of God(swt) or that he was Crucified.

Personaly I have not yet read enough to say I know why they wanted to kill him.

[doodlebug]

Thanks. I guess my main concern is that if they accused him of all this, why didn't he refute it if he never said it.

[Woodrow]

Thanks. I guess my main concern is that if they accused him of all this, why didn't he refute it if he never said it.

As far as I know that is strictly a Christian belief. It comes from the Christian Bible which we believe conains errors. We do not believe things happened in that manner and that he never said he was God(as) in any event we do not know exactly what did happen except that it was not I'sa who died. Possibly whoever it was that was crucified tried to say that he was not God(swt), if that was what he was charged with. The Christian version was written to support a belief other than what I'sa taught. I have no way to answer what I do not believe happened.

I never saw any writtings from outside the Bible that said he was charged with claiming to be God(swt)

[Joe98]

yup... people in hell are in the flesh.. ......God stated he will keep replacing their skin whenever it blisters off so they will feel pain anew...

After death, where does the body go?

[جوري]

After death, where does the body go?

it rots in the grave... it under goes rigor mortus... it decays... if you'd like details on how it rots and what gases are released refer to a science book

[Joe98]

What is "People in hell are in the flesh"?????

[dougmusr]

I never saw any writtings from outside the Bible that said he was charged with claiming to be God(swt)

I've never seen any writings outside the Quran that says Muhammed is a prophet either.

[duskiness]

From the Christian sources I have read it will vary with which denomination you belong to.
It seem that a large number of denominations say the Jew's condemned him for Blasphemy by him saying he was the Son of God.
Some denominations say that he was condemned for proclaiming he was the King of the Jews and that he was attempting to overthrow the government.

i think denominations don't vary here, because they use the same source. Simply both "charges" can be found in Gospels.
n.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm sorry...did someone answer my question on why they wanted to kill Jesus in the first place? And if it was because they thought he said he was God, why didn't he just refute it, if it wasn't true?

From this thread:

Matthew 23:37 tells us that the Jews stoned and killed other Prophets that were sent to them:
Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the
prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee...

Jesus claimed to be a prophet and recieved the same treatment, just as Prophet Muhammad pbuh was met by a barrage of stones when he conveyed his prophethood to the tribe of Thaqîf. The prophets never claimed to be god but they were stoned.

The Christian scriptures indicate that Christ was crucified for His claims to be the Son of God, and in fact He claimed to be the "I AM" encountered by Moses. The claim was so clear to His audience that the crowd picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy.

Jn 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 "I and My Father are one." 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."

Read the next few verses!!! Why did you OMIT Jesus's defense to their allegation?

“Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I (God) said, ‘You are gods’?* If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the son of God’?” (John 10:34-36).
*Psalm 82:6

This passage shows that Jesus defended himself saying, "But in your own scripture (Psalm 82:6), mere judges are called Gods! What then of someone who came with revelation from God? Surely the title 'god' is more fitting for him!"

This passage is an in-your-face-screaming-reference to metaphorical use of the word 'god'. Why does Jesus compare calling Jesus god to calling humans god if the former is to be taken literally and the latter metaphorically?

Please feel free to continue the discussion in the other thread,
Regards

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I've never seen any writings outside the Quran that says Muhammed is a prophet either.

Perhaps you can refer to the authentic Sunnah? And also, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was mentioned in previous scriptures, though I think we would be going beyond the scope of this thread if we were to delve into it. Perhaps there is already a thread out there somewhere :).

[dougmusr]

Greetings,

Perhaps you can refer to the authentic Sunnah? And also, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was mentioned in previous scriptures, though I think we would be going beyond the scope of this thread if we were to delve into it. Perhaps there is already a thread out there somewhere :).

I would not consider the Sunnah to be valid testimony because it was written by followers of Muhammed. In fact, I would expect if any writings were found that claimed to be part of the Sunnah and yet denyed Muhammed's prophet status, they would be considered fabrications.

I have seen postings claiming references to Muhammed in other scriptures, but none of the scriptures mention him by name.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

In fact, I would expect if any writings were found that claimed to be part of the Sunnah and yet denyed Muhammed's prophet status, they would be considered fabrications.

Well these writings are not authenticated by their content, but rather by their way of transmission. So the question would be who narrated this saying - which would be impossible to be proven an authentic one, since it is outright disbelief.

I have seen postings claiming references to Muhammed in other scriptures, but none of the scriptures mention him by name.

Perhaps it seems this way if one is using the translated versions. When we turn to the original languages, however, we may find it.

[جوري]

I would not consider the Sunnah to be valid testimony because it was written by followers of Muhammed. In fact, I would expect if any writings were found that claimed to be part of the Sunnah and yet denyed Muhammed's prophet status, they would be considered fabrications.

I have seen postings claiming references to Muhammed in other scriptures, but none of the scriptures mention him by name.

Prophet Mohammed is mentioned by name... it was lost to you in the translation
References to the Holy Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) are made in the Bible although very few Christians know where these references actually are as they turn the pages. In the original scriptures the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is actually mentioned by name; as you are probably aware the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. In the Old Testament in the Song of Solomon v5, Ch 16 in the Hebrew language it reads (phonetically)

"hi’kko ma mitha’kimm vi kullo mohammadim zehdudi vi zeherehi baynat yerushalem"

The word mohammadim is Mohammed with ‘im’ – ‘im’ is a plural of respect in Hebrew.
Latinised Language: Further examples: Jesus was the Messiah (Hebrew word), in Arabic Massih, in English ‘Christ’. How does this happen? The Hebrew it means to anoint, to rub over. As Muslims when we do ablutions for prayer (Wudu) we rub water over our head and this is called ‘Massah’ every Muslim does that – it stems from the Hebrew and Arabic to rub, wipe or anoint. Messiah in Greek means ‘Christos’, this was turned into Christ in English. Jesus was not his name; it was Yeheshua in classical Hebrew or (Isa, Isoh, Iesu in Arabic or Hebrew). Westerners have a habit of adding J’s – Yusuf becomes Joseph, Yohanna becomes John, Yakub becomes Jacob. Where there is no ‘J’, a ‘J’ is added. It is akin to a sickness or literary 'J'-walking

[Skillganon]

We do not know for certain at which point the change took place. I can see the logic that it would make sense for the change to have taken place before the torture. There is no actually verification as to who was crucified, except that it was not I'sa(a.s.). I've heard speculation that it may have been Judas.

I agree that God(swt) will not deceive us. So in my mind it must have been some condition in which the people actually deceived themselves. I was not there so I can not say how God(swt) did this without it being deceit by him. I can only trust in Allah(swt) and if there is ever any reason I truly have a need to know I will learn it, Inshallah.

Well it is interesting to note that the people who was present wanted to see Jesus get crucified, are also the people who already rejected the message of Jesus (deaf,dumb and blind). They where the one abided theire mocking what they "percieved" to be Jesus.

They sealed thier own doom with their own hand but failed to achieve what they had set out to do.

[Jayda]

Well it is interesting to note that the people who was present wanted to see Jesus get crucified, are also the people who already rejected the message of Jesus (deaf,dumb and blind). They where the one abided theire mocking what they "percieved" to be Jesus.

They sealed thier own doom with their own hand but failed to achieve what they had set out to do.

Mary was present and so were some of the disciples they did not want him to be crucified.

[snakelegs]

That's the reason why I used a Jewish site. They obviously feel Christ was crucified.

this is not obvious to me at all. the quotes are addressing the political reasons that pontius pilate was white washed in the new testament.
here's your originial post.
From JewishVirtualLibrary.org:

"Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired."

From Tacitus Annals:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is interesting that neither of these articles deny Christ's crucifixion. It therefore would hardly seem to be a fable.

[Skillganon]

Mary was present and so were some of the disciples they did not want him to be crucified.

Hello Jayda

They watched from a distance, according to Matthew there was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. (Mark adds “Salome” to the list)

[Jayda]

Hello Jayda

They watched from a distance, according to Matthew there was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. (Mark adds “Salome” to the list)

Mark doesnt say what distance, John says its close enough for Jesus to talk to Mary. So she Mary Magdalene and at least one disciple were there. On top of that after his resurrection he spoke to his disciples, they recognized him, and he showed Thomas (who doubted) the holes in his arms. So we know Jesus was the one who was crucified.

[Skillganon]

Mark doesnt say what distance, John says its close enough for Jesus to talk to Mary. So she Mary Magdalene and at least one disciple were there. On top of that after his resurrection he spoke to his disciples, they recognized him, and he showed Thomas (who doubted) the holes in his arms. So we know Jesus was the one who was crucified.

Hola Jayda

Ok. Don't worry I will check. Don't wan't to argue, but discussion will be nice. Can you pm me the passage please. :rollseyes.

[Jayda]

No problemo :)

[Skillganon]

Here's is an article I researched and wrote, first time appearing here in LI forum. This is an unedited, and rushed version. Please tell me what you think, any comment is appreciated. Tell me if it is any good.

Crucifixion of Jesus.

by Musa.

Un-edited version.

1.0 Introduction:

Christianity holds that Jesus got crucified on the cross for the redemption of the sin of mankind through shedding of his blood.
The Nicene Creed makes it an article of faith to believe in the crucifixion of Jesus:
“For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;”[Nicene creed]

Islam holds that Jesus did not get crucified.

The purpose of this article is to reveals interesting fact concerning the crucifixion professed by these two faiths.

2.0. Crucifixion of Jesus according to the Bible

2.1. Leading up to the crucifixion:

Leading before the arrest of Jesus, Judas betrays him for money and all the disciples desert him and fled.
Gospel according to Luke describe Jesus being blasphemy by admitting His the son of God, when accused at the presence of the council of elders (Luke 22:70-71).
The next early morning the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
However in front of Pilate Jesus is accused of subverting the nation and opposing the payment of taxes as well as calling himself of Christ, King and stirring up the people of Judea (Luke 23: 1-2). Although Pilate seems to acknowledge there is no basis for the charge brought on nor did Herod whom Jesus was sent onto. The narration goes onto say Pilate opposed the crucifixion of Jesus but with the consent insistence of the Jews present he finally releases him to their will.
According Matthew narrates that Pilate has Jesus flogged before handing him over to them.

2.2 The Crucifixion:

The scripture according to Luke describes as Jesus was led away to be crucified with two other criminals and Simon from cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus according to Mark 15:21) was made to carry the cross behind Jesus. They crucified Jesus along with the two criminals one on his left and the other on his right. The people cast lots to decide who will divide his clothes. The people watched him and Rulers sneered at him. Soldiers mocked him to save himself and offered him wine vinegar.
Jesus died when “It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining…”(Luke 23:44-45)
All the people who gathered there to watch left but the women who followed from Galilee from a distance watch the spectacle. However according to Matthew Many women where watching from the distance who had followed from Galilee, amongst them Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. (Mark adds “Salome” to the list)
However Gospel according to John that Jesus mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene stood by the Cross of Jesus and was indeed witness to the event. (John19:25)

The short account provided above, of the crucifixion, is according to the gospels that Christiana generally believe in.

3.0 Jesus Crucifixion according to the Quran:

According to the Quran Jesus did not get crucified but it was made to appear to them. This is provided in the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran:

“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:-“ (Quran 4:157)

The Quran does not allude to how it was made to appear to them, i.e. whether it was someone else, an illusion e.t.c.

4.0 Jesus Crucifixion according to other early Christian writing:

We have seen the position of the bible teaching on the death of Jesus, which did take place, and we have seen the Quran position on the Jesus Crucifixion, which Jesus did not get crucified but it was made to appear to them.

Coming away from the bible, and looking elsewhere we find interesting statements in a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts that seems to have survived, discovered in 1945 Egypt, when once thought to be destroyed during early Christian struggle to define “Orthodoxy”

4.1. The Second Treaties of the Great Seth:

According to “ The Second Treatise of the Great Seth” it describes Jesus not succumbing to the plan they devised for him. That he did not die in reality but appeared to them so, according to their sight and thought he was suffered and succumbed to fear.
“…For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death”[1]
It goes onto say that indeed they saw they where punishing him but it was another, their own man they nailed onto the cross and who drank the Vinegar, (possibly Simon of cyrene) that they were deaf and blind and he, Jesus, was laughing at their ignorance.

4.2. The Acts of John:

The Act of John describes that John seeing that suffering of Jesus did not abide but fled unto the Mount of Olives, where he went to weep. Than Jesus appears in the midst of the cave and says:
“…John, unto the multitude below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar is given me to drink….”[2] Jesus put it into the John’s mind for him to come up to this mountain so he can hear what Jesus has to say.

Jesus goes unto say “...Nothing, therefore, of the things which they will say of me have I suffered: nay, that suffering also which I showed unto thee and the rest in the dance…”[2]

That what you hear, did not happen to him, but was made to appear so, to the people present there.

“… Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer…”[2]

After Jesus was taken up, and no one in the multitude beheld him.

4.3 Coptic The Apocalypse of Peter:

The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter reveals an interesting conversation between Peter and Jesus, where Peter sees they are taking Jesus, asks “who is the one glad and laughing on the tree, and is it another whom the feet and hand they are striking?”[3]
Jesus replies that the one on the tree is the living Jesus, but the one that peter sees is the substitute that came to being in his likeness.

“...He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me…”[3]

The narration goes onto say that Jesus, comes and tell that the one they crucified is a stony vessel where the demon resides, but the one standing near him is the real Jesus whom the arrested and released. Jesus laughs at their perception, knowing they are born blind.

4.4 The (First) Apocalypse of James:

According to the Apocalypse of James that when James heard of His suffering he went to the mountain called Gaugelan with his disciples where he prayed and waited for a sign of him. Jesus appears and John stops he’s prayer, embraces Jesus and kisses him, and say’s:
"Rabbi, I have found you! I have heard of your sufferings, which you endured. And I have been much distressed. My compassion you know. Therefore, on reflection, I was wishing that I would not see this people. They must be judged for these things that they have done. For these things that they have done are contrary to what is fitting."[4]

Jesus replied "...James, do not be concerned for me or for this people...” and that he did not undergo any suffering contrary to what James heard. Jesus say’s:

“...Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm...”[4]

5.0 Conclusion:

In conclusion this studies reveals an interesting fact concerning Jesus crucifixion whether was he crucified or not is contested before and still is now. It also sheds some light that Jesus crucifixion was not so readily believed amongst the followers and was not a common dogma during the period of early Christian faith.
What should be noted that all these scriptures reveals and agrees that it appeared to the multitude (i.e. they saw) that Jesus did get crucified and was killed on the stake (cross). However with the exception of the bible it was not Jesus who in reality got crucified.
This does not change what is in the bible or the Christian belief, nor does it change what is in the Quran or the Muslim belief.

Peace.

Ref:

[1] Translated by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.

[2] The Acts of John (verse 97-103).

[3] Translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard, (Coptic) The Apocalypse of Peter, The Nag Hammadi Library.

[4] Translated by William R. Schoedel, The (First) Apocalypse of James, Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.

[Skillganon]

any comments on how I can improve it?

[`Abd al-Azeez]

:sl:

Masha'Allah, very good article :) . I'm working on one right now, which uses the Bible to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't die on the cross, along with quotes from scholars.

:w:

[Skillganon]

:sl:

Masha'Allah, very good article :) . I'm working on one right now, which uses the Bible to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't die on the cross, along with quotes from scholars.

:w:

[MAD]NOTE TO EVERYONE: [/MAD]

Assalamu alaikum

Brother I may have made blunders on the article. Especially on the quote from the Translation of the Quran (which is translation), thus mistake on any commentary made from it.

According to the Quran Jesus did not get crucified but it was made to appear to them. This is provided in the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran:

“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:-“ (Quran 4:157)

The Quran does not allude to how it was made to appear to them, i.e. whether it was someone else, an illusion e.t.c

Read this. http://users4.ev1.net/~nami/Another_..._Meherally.htm

So I am not sure on that issue, arabic is not my expertise but you can try out the link "which is actually a refutation to someone else".

So please do not draw any conclusion that Quran say's it is "simon of cyrene," or anything else other than what is stated in the Quran(especiall in arabic) because I don't wan't to cause any fitnah.

Also to note I provided my finding from some presumebly gnostic text, and their is much miss-information in their. So be carefull not to go into where they went. I hope that is sufficient warning enough.