Crucifixion

[Shehzad]

Did Jesus die or didn't he?

[Shehzad]

Did Jesus die or didn't he?

sura 4:157 says christians were fooled, Jesus surley did not die.

[Umar001]

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Welcome :) and nice of you to ask.

Sura 4 Ayah 157 says in the interpretation of the meaning:

004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

May Peace be upon Jesus son of Mary and his mother.

I am glad you have joined the forum and I hope that you have a beneficial stay :)
There is also a Comperative Religion Section in which that question may have been more suitable.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/

Also I hope you remember to:

"be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry"

And

"be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

With

"gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience"

Being

"slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires."

Other than that, please do not be offended by others here, if anyone posts any offending matterial please be in the knowledge that it will not be tolerated, whether it be against Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Hindusm....

See ya Around, Eesa.

[The Ruler]

Greetings...:welcome: to the forums :)

you may find this thread relevant:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...d+jesus+die%3F

hope you have a great and beneficial stay here :)

:peace: peace :)

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

[Salmaan]

Welcome :)



Allah says :

"And when Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and lift you up to Me, and purify you of those who disbelieve, and will make those who followed you above those who disbelieved until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me shall you all return, and I shall judge between you in that which you dispute.’" (3:54,55)

Then He said in Surat An-Nisa':

"For their breaking the covenant, and their disbelief in Allah ’s Signs, and their slaying the Prophets unjustly, and for their saying: 'Our hearts are impermeable'. No, but Allah has set a seal upon them for their blasphemy, so little it is what they believe. And for their rejection to the Faith, and for their uttering against Mary a monstrous lie." (4:155,156)

"And for their saying (in boast): 'We killed Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubt with no certain knowledge, but only follow mere conjecture, for of a surety they killed him not. But Allah lifted him up to Him, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. And there is none of the people of the Book, but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them." (4:157-159)

These Verses tell us that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was lifted up to the heaven after his opponents from Jews complained and misled the king of that time, as they wanted to slay him and crucify him.

Ibn Abu Hatim has narrated from Ibn Abbas saying: "'When Allah wanted to lift him up to heaven, Jesus came to his companions in the house. There were twelve people, with some from among his disciples. He had just a bath, and his head was still dribbling with water. He said to them: 'There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me! Then he said: 'Who will from among you take my likeness and be killed in my place, so will become in my rank?' A young youth came forwards. But Jesus said to him: 'Sit down! Then he repeated the same question, and the same youth stood up and came forwards, and said: ‘I.' Jesus said: 'You are the one,' and then the likeness of Jesus was put on him, and Jesus was lifted up to the heaven from the window of his house.

Jews came looking for him. They took the youth and killed him and then crucified him. Later they became three groups. One group, who are called Jacobites (Yaqubiyah), believe that it was God Himself among them who stayed with them as long as He wanted to, then went back to the heaven. Another group who are called Nestorian (Nasturiyah), believed that it was the son of God who was with them, and stayed among them as long as he wanted, then his father lifted him up. But the group of true believers said that he was the slave of Allah and His Messenger who stayed among them as long as he wanted, then his Lord Allah took him up to Him. The two disbeliever groups collided together against the believer group and killed them, and so real teachings of Islam taught by Jesus became obscure till Allah sent the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Hasan Basri and Ibn Ishaq said: The king who ordered the killing of Jesus, was David bin Naura. He commanded Jesus to be killed and hanged. They surrounded Jesus who was in a house inside Bait-ul-Maqdis. It was a Saturday night. When they were about to enter the house, his likeness was put on one of those who were present there with him. And Jesus was lifted up from the window of that house to the heaven. When the police entered the house they found the youth on whom the likeness of Jesus was put, so they took him and crucified him. Even they put a crown of thorns on his head to mock him. Those Christians who were not present there at that time, believed what Jews claimed, that they killed Jesus.

Allah said: "And there is none of the people of the Book, but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them." This refers to the time when Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) will descend to the earth before the Day of Judgment, and kill the swine, break the Cross, impose the levy, and will not be pleased but with Islam."'

Ibn Jarir has narrated from Wahb bin Munabbih, saying: Jesus came along with seventeen of his disciples to a house. Then police came and surrounded the house. However, when they entered the house, Allah put the likeness of Jesus on all of those who were there. They were confused, and said: "You have bewitched us. Either Jesus come to us, or we will kill of you." Jesus said to his companions: "Who can buy today a place in Jannah (Paradise)?" A man said: "I"' and went out, claiming: "I am Jesus." They took him and crucified him, and so they were deluded in their belief that they have killed Jesus, and so are the Christians. But Jesus was lifted up to Allah on that day.

Ibn `Asakir said: Mary lived after Jesus for five years, and then died at the age of fifty-three years.

Hasan Basri said: Jesus was thirty-four years old when he was lifted to the heaven. Sa'id bin Musayyib said: He was thirty-three years old when he was raised up to the heaven.

[Shehzad]

I wanted to add a rule at the beginning to prevent the common, ping-pong arguments that tend to happen. A rule of discernment is what keeps things more condensed. Discernment is what we all should desire to grow in from our youth on up to old age. Wisdom comes with discernment, I think we can all agree with that. So to be wise, discerning intellectuals, let us agree to only comment with objective truth. Objective means only those truth statements that can be proven as fact, to the casual observer. Often scripture is used as objective fact, but even that will have to be proven for this thread, okay? Historical facts, archaological facts, witnesses, are examples for establilshing objective truth. Prophecies are always to be questioned until proven to be a true prophet. Scripture can be used only if proven to be the Word of Allah, by some objective means.

These are rules of discernment that should be common amoung intelligent men and women. Let us go forward with this intent.

Let me know if you all agree.

Shehzad

[Shehzad]

IsaAbdullah, Glacier, and Salmaan.

You all assume the Quran is Holy. To be an objective truth, this must be proven. I know you believe this, but is it true? I am real new at this, so I have to ask questions about each step along the way. It has kept me from going down the wrong road many times, so I won't believe it unless it really is true. I have discernment.

Allah expects us to believe only what he says. For all of his prophets he described a way to test them, all of them. He spoke those words to Moses in 1500 BC, who wrote them down in Dueteronomy. It was not mistaken, because we know Jesus quoted often from Dueteronomy, a clear endorsement from a true prophet. This is one area of the Bible that is surely true. I have tested the prophets: Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah. They had prophecies that indeed came true, therefore they must have been prophets of God. Signs and wonders were shown by God for them as well. Another endorsement of Allah. Here is the verse from Deut 18:20-22: But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

So here is the test of a prophet. You see by this test it really makes sure, because only God knows the future. If someone wanted to trick you, they may say their a prophet, but tell them to predict the future. If it comes true, he must be a true prophet. Only a true prophet could be right time after time, correct?

Have you ever tested the writings of Mohammed? Test the many world events that Mohammed predicted. Jeremiah predicted a 70-year exile of Israel, which actually happened. Daniel predicted a 490-year peroid before the Annoitned One would come, and Jesus came at that precise year! Show me Mohammed's prophecies and I will believe in the same strength as his prophecies are. Did he predict World War I or World War II? Did he predict the Crusades? Perhaps he is a prophet. Please let me know what facts are there. If he didn't predict anything of substance, we cannot know that he is even a prophet. Prophets prophecy. False prophets don't prophecy, or prophecy wrongly.

Thanks for your comments.

Please reply with objective facts, only.

[glo]

I understand that according to the Qu'ran Jesus did not die, but was taking up to heaven.

I would like to know how - according to the Qu'ran - another person was arrested and cricified in Jesus' place.
Who was this substitute?
How did the switch take place?
Where did Jesus go, and when was he taken up to heaven?

Thanks

[Skillganon]

The concept that made way into the christian belief that Jesus died (got killed) on the cross was a so a popular belief among the early adherant.

I still mantain that early followers did not believe Jesus died on the cross but appeared to them who tried to kill him.

I can bring you proof that this belief was so, and it has made it into variouse scripture's in one form or another but all generally maintaining that he was not crucified, killed but appeared to be.

[Umar001]

I will reply in due course, I feel that I need to take time to reply, :)

Also, I will ask, Shehzad you claimed to have tested Prophets, am assuming with the Bible text used as a truthful account of what they said and done, so are we under the assumption that the Bible has not been changed?

[Skillganon]

I understand that according to the Qu'ran Jesus did not die, but was taking up to heaven.

I would like to know how - according to the Qu'ran - another person was arrested and cricified in Jesus' place.
Who was this substitute?
How did the switch take place?
Where did Jesus go, and when was he taken up to heaven?

Thanks

Actually it won't be suprising if some early christian asked the very same question and tried to fill in those Gaps.

[Grace Seeker]

Ibn Abu Hatim has narrated from Ibn Abbas saying: "'When Allah wanted to lift him up to heaven, Jesus came to his companions in the house. There were twelve people, with some from among his disciples. He had just a bath, and his head was still dribbling with water. He said to them: 'There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me! Then he said: 'Who will from among you take my likeness and be killed in my place, so will become in my rank?' A young youth came forwards. But Jesus said to him: 'Sit down! Then he repeated the same question, and the same youth stood up and came forwards, and said: ‘I.' Jesus said: 'You are the one,' and then the likeness of Jesus was put on him, and Jesus was lifted up to the heaven from the window of his house.

I'm confused. Is this from the Qur'an or some other source?

If this is found in the Qur'an could you please provide chapter and verse?

If this is from some other source, why does it seem to be treated with the same authority as the Qur'an?

[Umar001]

I'm confused. Is this from the Qur'an or some other source?

If this is found in the Qur'an could you please provide chapter and verse?

If this is from some other source, why does it seem to be treated with the same authority as the Qur'an?

I believe the bit that you have quoted is not from the Qu'ran rather it is a statement of a companion of the Prophet, peace be upon him, Ibn Abbas, I think the brother quoted a passage out of Ibn Kathir's stories of the Prophets.

Is it on the same level as the Qu'ran?

I am not sure, the statements of the Prophet peace be upon him, are the same level as the Qu'ran, and some of the statements of the Companions, are actually indirectly statements that have come from the Prophet, but with regards as to whether Ibn Abbas got this from the Prophet? Someone of more knowledge should be able to answer you.

if the prophet said this then it is as authorative as the Qu'ran.

[Grace Seeker]

The concept that made way into the christian belief that Jesus died (got killed) on the cross was a so a popular belief among the early adherant.

I still mantain that early followers did not believe Jesus died on the cross but appeared to them who tried to kill him.

I am confused by this also. These seem to me to be two self-contradictory statements.

If the concept that Jesus died on the cross was a popular belief among early Christians, how can you also say that early followers did not die on the cross. It seems that among early Christians either they did or they did not believe Jesus died on the cross. It seems highly unlikely that an individual would hold to two different and opposing beliefs of this nature at the same time.

Also we know from both Roman and Jewish sources that it was not only Christians but they also believed that Jesus died on the cross. Among Christians the chief claim was that not only did Jesus die on the cross, but that he was raised to life again after his death. This is not recorded in just one place, but in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letter to the church at Corinth and John's letter which was circulated to all churches.

The reason that Christianity broke away from Judaism is not that a few adherents claimed that Jesus was crucified when he was not, but that these people claimed that he was raised from the dead and thus should be understood to be God's messiah, when others did not want to accept what that implied. the historical reality of the development of Christianity as a new faith separate from Judaism is itself testimony that the early Christians truly believed these things, whether people to day think they were in error is another story. But it betrays logic to think their lives were so radically changed by something they did NOT believe in.

[Umar001]

I am confused by this also. These seem to me to be two self-contradictory statements.

Yes, it surely does, Insha'Allah he will explain what he meant lol.

If the concept that Jesus died on the cross was a popular belief among early Christians, how can you also say that early followers did not die on the cross. It seems that among early Christians either they did or they did not believe Jesus died on the cross. It seems highly unlikely that an individual would hold to two different and opposing beliefs of this nature at the same time.

Early followers did not belive? I dont get that part a typo?

Also we know from both Roman and Jewish sources that it was not only Christians but they also believed that Jesus died on the cross. Among Christians the chief claim was that not only did Jesus die on the cross, but that he was raised to life again after his death. This is not recorded in just one place, but in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letter to the church at Corinth and John's letter which was circulated to all churches.

I could be possible that the Jewish and Roman sources thought they truly had witnessed Jesus die, the Qu'ran actually, as you see in the above quotes, says that the Jews boast/say that they killed the Messiah.

Are you familier with any of the theories on the compilations of the Cannocial Gospels?

The reason that Christianity broke away from Judaism is not that a few adherents claimed that Jesus was crucified when he was not, but that these people claimed that he was raised from the dead and thus should be understood to be God's messiah, when others did not want to accept what that implied. the historical reality of the development of Christianity as a new faith separate from Judaism is itself testimony that the early Christians truly believed these things, whether people to day think they were in error is another story. But it betrays logic to think their lives were so radically changed by something they did NOT believe in.

Well, I guess maybe we all need to come on common terms as to what we mean by 'early' christians. I think thats a key point.

In the spirit of better inter-faith dialogue.

[MTAFFI]

there is a prayer in the Catholic church that says different than what is said above, you can believe what you want, i am just trying to give a different interpretation of what happened. This particular prayer is said at every mass in the Catholic church, it is called the Apostles Creed and reads as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

[Umar001]

there is a prayer in the Catholic church that says different than what is said above, you can believe what you want, i am just trying to give a different interpretation of what happened. This particular prayer is said at every mass in the Catholic church, it is called the Apostles Creed and reads as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

You mean different to the Islamic belief?

And I have heard it before, I liked hearing the whole congregation say it together, though I think it was slightly different, non-catholic.

[Joe98]

The basis of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If he did not rise from the deasd there would be no Christianity.

How he died is of secondary importance. But crucifixion is the most likely.

[Skillganon]

I am confused by this also. These seem to me to be two self-contradictory statements.

If the concept that Jesus died on the cross was a popular belief among early Christians, how can you also say that early followers did not die on the cross. It seems that among early Christians either they did or they did not believe Jesus died on the cross. It seems highly unlikely that an individual would hold to two different and opposing beliefs of this nature at the same time.

Well hear you have a choice, what I am suggesting that Jesus died on the cross was not undisputed belief.
Just that Jesus dying in the cross became a prominent belief in one way or anoter.

Other beliefs concerning Jesus death either got supressed, lost or destroyed later on.

Also we know from both Roman and Jewish sources that it was not only Christians but they also believed that Jesus died on the cross. Among Christians the chief claim was that not only did Jesus die on the cross, but that he was raised to life again after his death. This is not recorded in just one place, but in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letter to the church at Corinth and John's letter which was circulated to all churches.
The reason that Christianity broke away from Judaism is not that a few adherents claimed that Jesus was crucified when he was not, but that these people claimed that he was raised from the dead and thus should be understood to be God's messiah, when others did not want to accept what that implied. the historical reality of the development of Christianity as a new faith separate from Judaism is itself testimony that the early Christians truly believed these things, whether people to day think they were in error is another story. But it betrays logic to think their lives were so radically changed by something they did NOT believe in.

Crucifixion of Jesus.

by Musa. (CopyRighted by me, non-reproducable without permission)

Unedited version. (Primary version with more work needed)

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 further insight 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.

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, it also suggest it was 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]

Afterwards 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 they insist 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] M.R. James-Translation and Notes, The Acts of John (verse 97-103), The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

[3] Translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard, (Coptic) The Apocalypse of Peter, Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.

[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.

[Umar001]

The basis of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If he did not rise from the deasd there would be no Christianity.

How he died is of secondary importance. But crucifixion is the most likely.

I could not agree more.

I don't think I have ever agreed this much with you :p

And long time no see in this section. :)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings,
Many historians note that there were many sects during the early years of Christianity who differed on these beliefs, but they were the subject of brutal persecution and extermination which is in no way reflective of true Christian teachings. I will quote some of the historical research by Dr. Laurence Brown:

On the other hand, if the concept of another crucified in place of Jesus sounds foreign to Christianity, it isn’t. Amongst early Christian groups the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Paulicians, and the Carpocratians all believed Christ Jesus to have been spared. The Basilidians, in specific, believed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place. Typical of such dissenting groups, all of the above were judged to have been Gnostics and/or heretics by the orthodox Church, and were violently suppressed by a Trinitarian majority who systematically burned dissenters into oblivion for the first fifteen centuries of Roman Catholic rule (the most recent roasting having taken place in Mexico in 1,850 CE).

To be fair, Gnostic ideology did have a place in many, if not most or even all groups regarded to be dissenters from orthodoxy. But then again, Gnosticism has a place in Orthodoxy as well, for what is ‘gnosis’ if not the belief that initiates possess some esoteric but essential knowledge necessary for salvation, but which can neither be explained nor justified? And what else has the discussion of the preceding pages exposed, if not the lack of scriptural foundation for the canon of Trinitarian Orthodoxy?

Of the above groups, the Paulicians (initially known as ‘Paulinians,’ likely due to taking guidance from Paul of Samosata) hold special interest. Paul of Samosata reportedly took his teaching from Diodorus, head of the Nazarene Church in Antioch. His teachings in turn branched off the trunk of apostolic ideology through individuals such as Lucian (who in turn taught Arius), Eusebius of Nicomedia, and even Nestorius (whose sphere of influence expanded from Eastern Europe as far east as China and as far south as Abyssinia). The Paulician influence eventually spread to occupy most, if not all, of Europe and North Africa. Yet so complete was their annihilation by the Roman Catholic Church during the period of persecution, that both they and their books were virtually completely destroyed. Only in the mid-nineteenth century was one of their sacred books, The Key of Truth, discovered in Armenia and translated. From this document a view of the practices and beliefs responsible for the popularity of this group can be appreciated.

The Paulicians may invite condemnation for their dualistic ideology, acceptance of suicide, and excess of asceticism. Notable is the peculiar Paulician concept of Christ Jesus having been a phantasm, and not a man. On the other hand, the Paulicians did adhere to belief in Divine Unity, the Immaculate Conception, baptism, and other creeds and practices which date from the apostolic age. Included in the list of their particulars is the apparent lack of an organized priesthood or hierarchy of clergy. The leaders married and had families. The services were characterized by simplicity of worship and the lack of sacraments – not even holy water was accepted in their services. The Paulicians refused to adopt any visible object of worship – no relics, no images, not even the cross. All images, whether paintings or sculpture, were viewed as idolatrous, foreign to the teachings of Jesus, and in violation of the second commandment. The doctrine of Incarnation appears to have been denied, as were the doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity, all rejected on the basis of lacking scriptural foundation. The Paulicians denied the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and consequently rejected the doctrines of Resurrection, Atonement, and Redemption of Sins.

The Paulicians also shunned infant baptism as an innovation distant from the teachings and practice of Jesus, claiming that baptism without mature faith and repentance was of little or no value. Celebration of Christmas was likewise avoided on the grounds of being a manmade holiday constructed as a concession of the Catholic Church to coincide with the pagan festival of Sol Invictus (celebration of the return of the Sun-god [i.e. Sol invictus – the Invincible Sun] every year on December 25, which coincides with the winter solstice). Tithes were neither solicited nor accepted. Strict diet was maintained, devotion to worship in all aspects of life stressed, and cleanliness of temper, thoughts, work and words aspired to.

One inquisitor described such heretics under the following umbrella:

“Heretics are recognizable by their customs and speech, for they are modest and well regulated. They take no pride in their garments, which are neither costly nor vile. They do not engage in trade, to avoid lies and oaths and frauds, but they live by their labour as mechanics—their teachers are cobblers. They do not accumulate wealth, but are content with necessaries. They are chaste and temperate in meat and drink. They do not frequent taverns or dances or other vanities. They restrain themselves from anger. They are always at work; they teach and learn and consequently pray but little. They are to be known by their modesty and precision of speech, avoiding scurrility and detraction and light words and lies and oaths.” [1]

A better model based upon the mold of the carpenter-King might be difficult to find. St. Bernard was quoted as having commented,

“If you interrogate them, nothing can be more Christian; as to their conversation, nothing can be less reprehensible, and what they speak they prove by deeds. As for the morals of the heretic, he cheats no one, he oppresses no one, he strikes no one; his cheeks are pale with fasting, he eats not the bread of idleness, his hands labour for his livelihood.”[2]

But for their creed, they were killed. Over a period of centuries the Paulicians were hounded wherever they were to be found. The reign of Empress Theodora during the 9th century was known for the re-establishment of image worship in Constantinople and, as E. Gibbon notes,

“Her inquisitors explored the cities and mountains of the Lesser Asia, and the flatterers of the empress have affirmed, that, in a short reign, one hundred thousand Paulicians were extirpated by the sword, the gibbet, or the flames.”[3]

The Paulicians eventually were driven from Armenia to Thrace, and on to Bulgaria. From Bulgaria they spread to Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovinia, then north to Germany; west to France, and south into Italy. By sea they found routes to Venice, Sicily and Southern France. The rapid expansion of the Paulicians, who also became known as the ‘Catharii’ (meaning ‘the Pure’), became a threat to the Roman Catholic Church, and they were condemned at the Councils of Orleans in 1022, of Lombard in 1165, and of Verona in 1184. Not until the Medieval Inquisition of the thirteenth century was the church able to act upon their condemnation of the Paulicians, but then, opening floodgates on the dammed-up hostility of several centuries, they applied the full force of their vehement hatred with a vengeance sufficient to sever their lineage. The loss of the Paulicians, and of the various other Christian sects cloned from similar ideological germ cells, testifies to the terrible efficacy of the religious cleansing of the Medieval Inquisition and subsequent periods of persecution. F. C. Conybeare comments,

“It was no empty vow of their elect ones, ‘to be baptized with the baptism of Christ, to take on themselves scourgings, imprisonments, tortures, reproaches, crosses, blows, tribulation, and all temptations of the world.’ Theirs the tears, theirs the blood shed during more than ten centuries of fierce persecution in the East; and if we reckon of their number, as well we may, the early puritans of Europe, then the tale of wicked deeds wrought by the persecuting churches reaches dimensions which appal the mind. And as it was all done, nominally out of reverence for, but really in mockery of, the Prince of Peace, it is hard to say of the Inquisitors that they knew not what they did.”[4]

That the Catholic Church was so effective in eliminating their opposition is of no surprise to those who study their methodology. The degree of savagery did not even spare their own people, at times sacrificing members of the orthodoxy to insure complete elimination of the Unitarians. For example, the mixed population of Catholics and Unitarians of the people of Beziers, in the South of France, were attacked in the following manner:

“From infancy in arms to tottering age, not one was spared – seven thousand, it is said, were slaughtered in the Church of Mary Magdalen to which they had fled for asylum – and the total number of slain is set down by the legates at nearly twenty thousand.”[5]

The full horror of the callous cruelty of the leader of this massacre comes into focus in consideration of the fact that:

“A fervent Cistercian contemporary informs us that when Arnaud was asked whether the Catholics should be spared, he feared the heretics would escape by feigning orthodoxy, and fiercely replied, ‘Kill them all, for God knows his own!’ In the mad carnage and pillage the town was set on fire, and the sun of that awful July day closed on a mass of smouldering ruins and blackened corpses – a holocaust to a deity of mercy and love whom the Cathari might well be pardoned for regarding as the Principle of Evil.”[6]

The use of torture by the inquisitors was equally horrific, for it did not end at confession. Once confession was offered torture was renewed to extract names of associates. Following this information, torture was again continued to ensure the last drop of information was squeezed from the mangled husk of what had once been a human being.

Once accused, the pitiful defendant was bound to suffer. Torture yielded an invariable result, if not out of truth, then out of desperation to bring an end to the pain. Horrifically, protestations of innocence and even the oath of orthodoxy did not bring relief, for suspects professing orthodox belief were committed to suffer a test of faith, of which the Church was creative. Trials by water and fire were popularized and sanctioned by the Catholic Church for the testing of a person’s faith by way of ‘Judicium Dei’ -- ‘Judgement of God.’ The concept was based upon the belief that the purity of water would not accept a guilty body into its midst (i.e. floaters were judged guilty and executed, sinkers were considered innocent, and if rescued before drowning, spared), while earthly fire, like the fire of Hell, would be forbidden to harm those who (in their view) were the faithful Christians bearing the promise of paradise. The ‘Hot Iron Test’ was the most commonly employed, as it was simple and readily available. In this test the accused was required to carry a red-hot piece of iron for a certain number of steps, usually nine. Judgement was offered either at the time of the test (those burned were judged guilty) or several days later (those whose wounds were healing were considered innocent, whereas those whose wounds showed signs of infection were judged guilty). Other variations existed, such as determining whether or not a person suffered a burn when an arm was immersed up to the elbow in boiling water or boiling oil.

Lest a person presume such methods rarely employed, the Council of Rheims in 1157 decreed that such trials by ordeal be employed to satisfy all cases of suspected heresy.[7]

Now, why all this discussion about what is now a little known and dead sect? Well, the intent is neither to glorify any religious sect beyond the merits of its ideology, nor to evoke sympathy for their cause. Rather, the above discussion is intended to call home the realization that alternate Christian ideologies occupied a position of significance in religious history -- a position which has for the most part become obscure in the shadow of prevailing Trinitarianism. The Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Paulicians, and the Carpocratians may be little known today, but they had a place in history. History, however, has not only been written by those who prevailed, but systematic effort to erase the record of all scriptures contrary to those of the Roman Catholic Church was largely successful in the first millennium of Roman Catholic rule. Additionally, historical attempts to villainize all other religions or sects of Christianity has prejudiced the minds of much of the populace. So successful were these efforts that the records and holy books of those who appear to have been closest to the worship of the apostolic fathers have been largely lost. Similarly, those closest to embodying the practices and creed of the prophet Jesus have come to be regarded as ‘heretics,’ not for any error inherent to their beliefs, but simply because they do not embrace the ‘evolved’ doctrines of that religious body which gained official sanction. In other words they became condemned for non-conformity -- non-conformity with views which, though lacking scriptural authority, were selected by men of position and propagated for reason of political expediency.

One of the curious elements of Trinitarian history lies in the fact that almost everywhere it went in the Christian world, it had to be imposed upon a previously Unitarian people. The Donatists and the Arians, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, the Vandals and the Paulicians all had to be muscled aside prior to the imposition of lasting Trinitarian rule. Even in England and Ireland there is suspicion that, contrary to official historical accounts, a good portion of the population were Unitarian Christian prior to receiving Trinitarian influence. Whereas Unitarians attempted to spread faith through example and invitation, the Roman Catholic Church spread Trinitarian faith by shearing the populace with the wickedly sharp blades of compulsion and elimination. Once the land was theirs, the torture marks and scars where the blades had bitten too deeply were covered with a thick ointment of claims of heresy and alterations in the accuracy of recorded history, for the satisfaction of those who would otherwise question the vicious methodology.

Reviewing what can be surmised from unprejudiced historical accounts, opposing views to those of Trinitarian Christianity are seen to have been voiced by a large population of the religious, and spanning the known world. And the opinions of those who denied the crucifixion and death of Christ Jesus were not necessarily either a minority in their time or incorrect in their claim. All that not withstanding, many would argue that from a gut level it makes more sense for God to have punished Judas for his treachery than to have tortured Jesus for his innocence. The argument would become more convincing if the doctrines of atonement and original sin could be shown to be invalid, for these two doctrines hinge off the doorframe of the alleged death of Jesus. The first hurdle for many people in considering such revolutionary thoughts straddles the ages old assertion that Christ Jesus was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29), for in the mind of the Trinitarian, this verse can have no relevance other than to that of the doctrine of atonement. Unitarians, however, conceive Jesus to have lived a life of sacrifice in order to bear a purifying teaching which, if adopted, would cleanse the world of deviation.
__________________
[1] Lea, Henry Charles. 1958. A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages. Vol. I. New York: Russell & Russell. p. 85.
[2] Lea, Henry Charles. Vol. I, p. 101.
[3] Gibbon, Edward, Esq. Vol. 6, Chapter LIV, p. 242.
[4] Conybeare, Fred. C., M.A. 1898. The Key of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Preface, p. xi.
[5] Lea, Henry Charles. Vol. I, p. 154.
[6] Lea, Henry Charles. Vol. I, p. 154.
[7] Lea, Henry Charles. Vol. I, p. 306.

Regards

[glo]

I would like to know how - according to the Qu'ran - another person was arrested and cricified in Jesus' place.
Who was this substitute?
How did the switch take place?
Where did Jesus go, and when was he taken up to heaven?

Actually it won't be suprising if some early christian asked the very same question and tried to fill in those Gaps.

But what answers does the Qu'ran give to these questions?

Peace

[Skillganon]

Read my previouse post. Post Number 19

[duskiness]

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:
4.2. The Acts of John:
4.3 Coptic The Apocalypse of Peter:
4.4 The (First) Apocalypse of James:

One question bothers me:
Why Muslim find gnostic gospels reliable, when they say that Jesus wasn't crucified, but when the very same text says, that Jesus was divine and NOT human, those gospels suddenly become unreliable?

In fact, that's not the only question i have....
If you accept gnostic gospels as more reliable, then what about the fact, that most gnostic gospel (also form Nag Hammdi) accept crucifixion???


btw: it's not true that Acts of John were discovered in 1945 in Egipt. This text doesn't belong to Nag Hammadi library.

[glo]

Read my previouse post. Post Number 19

Ah ... I missed that. :rollseyes

I gather from your post that the only reference in the Qu'ran is this:

“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)

Would that be correct? Or are there other references?

If this is the only verse in the Qu'ran, it answers my question, in the sense that the Qu'ran offers no answer to my previous questions ...
"I would like to know how - according to the Qu'ran - another person was arrested and cricified in Jesus' place.
Who was this substitute?
How did the switch take place?
Where did Jesus go, and when was he taken up to heaven?"

peace

[Umar001]

Hi, I still gotta reply to the Jesus and Jihad thing, InshaAllah I wont forget :p
and nice to see you back.

One question bothers me:
Why Muslim find gnostic gospels reliable, when they say that Jesus wasn't crucified, but when the very same text says, that Jesus was divine and NOT human, those gospels suddenly become unreliable?

In fact, that's not the only question i have....
If you accept gnostic gospels as more reliable, then what about the fact, that most gnostic gospel (also form Nag Hammdi) accept crucifixion???


btw: it's not true that Acts of John were discovered in 1945 in Egipt. This text doesn't belong to Nag Hammadi library.

Since you mentioned Muslims I assume yuo mean me aswell, so I will give my personal opinion.

I don't say Gnostic gospels are all reliable, I think it depends on which one and so forth. I don't think any Muslim will hold the view that any Gospel is with us 100% so maybe the accept the non-crucifixion to be true, but then not the divinity, because they hold the Qu'ran to be the testing method, because they see the Qu'ran as established truth, they know that anything that contradicts it is not true, thus they might believe the parts that dont contradict and leave the parts that do.

I hope that kinda explains it.

[Skillganon]

One question bothers me:
Why Muslim find gnostic gospels reliable, when they say that Jesus wasn't crucified, but when the very same text says, that Jesus was divine and NOT human, those gospels suddenly become unreliable?

It was not about the reliability of the text. It was about stressing the fact that "Jesus not dying on the cross but appeared to them" made it into some early (gnostic) scriptural writing in one form or another, despite how far removed their belief is.

It is possible that they drawed such belief from other traditions.

In fact, that's not the only question i have....
If you accept gnostic gospels as more reliable, then what about the fact, that most gnostic gospel (also form Nag Hammdi) accept crucifixion???

And vice versa. That's what I am only stressing. (However I am not sure about the "most gnostic gospel")

..and to end it...

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)

btw: it's not true that Acts of John were discovered in 1945 in Egipt. This text doesn't belong to Nag Hammadi library.

Sorry about that, I rushed it, and never got around to do editing it. (I did say it was un-edited.

[duskiness]

Ad. Ansar's post (i won't quote it, it's too long):

Paulicianism is a heresy started around VII AD (wiki: "flourished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia", and as a year of founding "about 656"). I'm not sure if we can accept it as early Christianity....
Still every religion has it heresy.
I'm not good in Islams history, and the only "heresy" i can name are Mutazilits. Using them, i could argue that first Muslims believed that Quran was created.
And my argument would be stronger at the point, that Mutazilits were much closer in time to first Muslims, than Paulicians to first Christians.

Hi, I still gotta reply to the Jesus and Jihad thing, InshaAllah I wont forget :p
and nice to see you back..

don't worry, I'm very patient person :D

Since you mentioned Muslims I assume yuo mean me aswell, so I will give my personal opinion.

i probably shouldn't use such a general word as "Muslims" :rollseyes

I don't say Gnostic gospels are all reliable, I think it depends on which one and so forth. I don't think any Muslim will hold the view that any Gospel is with us 100% so maybe the accept the non-crucifixion to be true, but then not the divinity, because they hold the Qu'ran to be the testing method, because they see the Qu'ran as established truth, they know that anything that contradicts it is not true, thus they might believe the parts that dont contradict and leave the parts that do.
I hope that kinda explains it.

yes, it explains. but as you see to accept such an argument, you have to accept Quran's authority. If you don't then this way of reasoning is a bit incoherent.

It was not about the reliability of the text. It was about stressing the fact that "Jesus not dying on the cross but appeared to them" made it into some early (gnostic) scriptural writing in one form or another, despite how far removed their belief is.

If it was only about it, then you have made your point.:)
I will add that this idea could be found in a few gnostic gospels [only 3 (i trust you here) texts out of around 50 (not sure about number) in Nag Hammadi; and in 1 (once again: you are my source :D) non-Nag Hammadi gnostic gospel (out of many, many)], which are not considered "reliable" neither by Muslims (because of their way of thinking about Jesus) nor by Christians (for the same reason)

there is a prayer in the Catholic church that says different than what is said above, you can believe what you want, i am just trying to give a different interpretation of what happened. This particular prayer is said at every mass in the Catholic church, it is called the Apostles Creed and reads as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

i came across now quote recently:

Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

Martin Luther :D
...and it's not only catholic creed!! It's also accepted by many Protestants and some Orthodox Churches!!

[Umar001]

yes, it explains. but as you see to accept such an argument, you have to accept Quran's authority. If you don't then this way of reasoning is a bit incoherent.

Yep, that is why muslims should not say to others, accept it because the Quran says it, first they should rather show that the quran is what they believe it to be.

Then the logic might make more sense

or the muslim could just show the knowledge in the area that is being talkedabout.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Duskiness,
I believe you missed the point in the material I quoted. If I may highlight some of the key points again:

On the other hand, if the concept of another crucified in place of Jesus sounds foreign to Christianity, it isn’t. Amongst early Christian groups the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Paulicians, and the Carpocratians all believed Christ Jesus to have been spared. The Basilidians, in specific, believed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place.

Now, why all this discussion about what is now a little known and dead sect? Well, the intent is neither to glorify any religious sect beyond the merits of its ideology, nor to evoke sympathy for their cause. Rather, the above discussion is intended to call home the realization that alternate Christian ideologies occupied a position of significance in religious history -- a position which has for the most part become obscure in the shadow of prevailing Trinitarianism. The Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Paulicians, and the Carpocratians may be little known today, but they had a place in history. History, however, has not only been written by those who prevailed, but systematic effort to erase the record of all scriptures contrary to those of the Roman Catholic Church was largely successful in the first millennium of Roman Catholic rule.

Reviewing what can be surmised from unprejudiced historical accounts, opposing views to those of Trinitarian Christianity are seen to have been voiced by a large population of the religious, and spanning the known world. And the opinions of those who denied the crucifixion and death of Christ Jesus were not necessarily either a minority in their time or incorrect in their claim.

So again, the point is not that these early sects were all correct in their beliefs and were the original true followers of Christ. The point is that the notion that belief in crucifixion or trinity has been the accepted creed of the majority of Christians throughout time is not entirely accurate. There were many early dissenting groups who were silenced often violently.

Paulicianism is a heresy started around VII AD (wiki: "flourished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia", and as a year of founding "about 656"). I'm not sure if we can accept it as early Christianity....

That is when it emerged as a movement under the name 'paulicianism' but as Dr. Brown points out the possible conntection to earlier figures most probable of them being Paul of Samosata (d. 275AD).

Still every religion has it heresy.

Absolutely. Hopefully from the above you will see why arguing that point is a strawman,

Regards

[Grace Seeker]

Well hear you have a choice, what I am suggesting that Jesus died on the cross was not undisputed belief.
Just that Jesus dying in the cross became a prominent belief in one way or anoter.

Other beliefs concerning Jesus death either got supressed, lost or destroyed later on.






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:

4.2. The Acts of John:

4.3 Coptic The Apocalypse of Peter:

4.4 The (First) Apocalypse of James:

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 they insist 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.

My apologies for asking a few questions and then not being able to keep up with this thread. I still owe Eesa and others answers to questions they have put to me and will attempt to get to them. For the moment, allow me to make a quick response here.

You are most correct in saying that there were those within Christendom who expressed a view that it was not Christ who died upon the cross. And the documents you cite are those in which this expression is found. And you are also correct in saying that these documents and their teachings were suppressed and even lost until recently. But what is more telling about these documents is that they are NOT the oldest of Christian writings which speak about Jesus crucifixion (or supposed crucifixion, depending on one's point of view). These writings are, as I am sure you are well aware, from the Nag Hammadi collection and while the actual manuscripts in hand are from the 3rd and 4th century the original text is probably older, dating to even the 2nd century.

But being a 2nd century document is what makes it suspect. Perhaps you can correct me on this and find other dating of this material (and if so, I am interested), but I know of no 1st century Christians writings that speak of someone other than Jesus being the one on the cross. Not only Christians writing, but even the Jewish historian Josephus writes about Jesus crucifixion (which isn't so important) and that it was a fixture of Christian belief (which is important to our discussion).

Let be clear. I am in agreement with you that there are Christians writings (albiet gnostic in character) that talk about someone other than Jesus dying on the cross. But that idea is a 2nd century development and was not a part of the original belief, teaching, nor writings of first century Christianity or present among the contemporaries of Jesus. Thus in contrast to your position above, and in part because of the very evidence you cited, I hold that Jesus' crucifixion was indeed readily believed amongst the followers and was indeed a common dogma during the period of earliest Christian faith.

The corruption under exposure to gnostic influences came later, as is evidence by the Nag Hammadi documents, and it was precisely for this reason (namely that they were corrupted and did not represent the original teachings of the faith) that they were surpressed.

[snakelegs]

I wanted to add a rule at the beginning to prevent the common, ping-pong arguments that tend to happen. A rule of discernment is what keeps things more condensed. Discernment is what we all should desire to grow in from our youth on up to old age. Wisdom comes with discernment, I think we can all agree with that. So to be wise, discerning intellectuals, let us agree to only comment with objective truth. Objective means only those truth statements that can be proven as fact, to the casual observer. Often scripture is used as objective fact, but even that will have to be proven for this thread, okay? Historical facts, archaological facts, witnesses, are examples for establilshing objective truth. Prophecies are always to be questioned until proven to be a true prophet. Scripture can be used only if proven to be the Word of Allah, by some objective means.

These are rules of discernment that should be common amoung intelligent men and women. Let us go forward with this intent.

Let me know if you all agree.

Shehzad

i hope i am being wise and discerning and intellectual in this post, lol!
i find it strange when religious people try to apply scientific concepts to religion. in my view, religion requires no proof.
this may be a stupid question (it won't be the first time) - is there "objective truth" and has there been proof that jesus even existed? please don't be offended by this question - i do not mean it that way.
how could it possibly be "objectively proven" whether he died or didn't die, rose from the dead or didn't rise?

[Skillganon]

The objectivity of the thread is not wheter Jesus crucifixion, death and ressurection can be proven beyond considerable doubt with some hard evidence, a thing we are not witness to.
What we can provide is what people at close to his time or part of his legacy believed considering this topic, which is difficult topic itself considering that much of the text got burnt with the heretic. This is where I need more research & time, and give apt & plausible response to Grace seeker. Also not forgetting that one can use what is only available.

Fundementaly what this texts show's (taken they are 2nd century) is that the alteriar belief of Jesus crucifixion is no later than 2nd century. It is also plausible given the different theme (story) of Jesus death potrayed in the 4 different scripture but all pointing to similiar concept may be an indication that it may indeed be a belief that is part of an older tradition (oral or even scriptural) that got absorbed into.

However I will not doubt that such a person Isa(pbuh) existed.

[snakelegs]

However I will not doubt that such a person Isa(pbuh) existed.

just so there is no misunderstanding - i did not mean to cast doubt on whether jesus existed or not. actually, i have no opinion about it. i was just replying to the post that i quoted.

[Skillganon]

just so there is no misunderstanding - i did not mean to cast doubt on whether jesus existed or not. actually, i have no opinion about it. i was just replying to the post that i quoted.

Non-taken.
I was not really expecting a response, as I was not making a response to anyone in particular. Just was making a statment concerning the topic at hand, and you came in handy.