A Question about Jesus being God

[MTAFFI]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. Later in life, for whatever reason, I often found myself contemplating whether or not I shared the views of Christians around the world. I have recently been reading into Islam and I find that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes you only have 1 God, you only pray to 1 God or in other words, you should practice true monotheism. Christianity also claims to practice monotheism, in that the holy trinity is only one being (God), but here is my question if Jesus (pbuh) were God, then why would he have said on the cross "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" and why would he have prayed, and why would the devil have tempted him during his forty days in the desert with no food or water? And if Jesus was in fact not God, but the Messiah, as the bible says he is, then why would people of the Christian faith say prayers to Jesus, to me that is worshipping more than one God. Furthermore, why, if Christianity is a monotheist religion, do Catholics have the prayer "Hail Mary", and why patronize saints, and say prayers to them for small things, like say Saint Anthony for a parking spot or safe travel? Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

[MTAFFI]

bump :hiding:

[Keltoi]

All of these questions have been answered in other threads. Check out the Trinity thread and others.

[- Qatada -]

Just some points to reflect and ponder over;


There's no explicit verse in the Bible where Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) say's he's God.


Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus son of Mary say 'worship me.'


ALL the Messengers' and Prophets of God have always called to the worship of the One above the heavens i.e. our Creator and Sustainer. If anyone disagrees with this, then they're just falling into the traps of the polytheists by claiming that God has incarnated within the creation, so the creation should 'also be worshipped' along with God. We know that claim is false. God is One, and He is Alone worthy of worship.



Jesus was in his mothers womb, he was born, fed off his mother, grew up, ate his daily food, went to the 'bathroom' etc. Which is typical, since every human does this. Including the honorable Messengers of God, since every Messenger is human, but the Messengers of God are the best among His creation.



The concept of Jesus being tempted by satan (if it were to be true) is a good example for us, since Allaah tests His Messengers' and makes them role models for humanity. So if Jesus was to be tempted by satan, and he never fell in satans trap, this then shows us how great of an example Jesus (peace be upon him) really is to mankind. Yet if one was to claim that satan tried to 'tempt' God - this is totally illogical.



We as Muslims believe that Jesus never died, rather he was raised upto God and will come near the end times (since he is the Messiah/Christ) and he will fight the Anti Christ. The true battle between good/bad, truth/falsehood etc will take place when he returns. He will live, get married, he will die. So if one was to say that Jesus was 'god', and that he 'died' - this then seems illogical, since God does NOT die.



The Muslims actually imitate Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) more than many other people do even today! We know Muslim men usually grow the beards, since that is an example of the Prophets/Messengers of Allaah. I can assure you that there are much more Muslims who imitate Jesus in growing the beard, in imitating him in many ways compared to others among humanity.

From Abu Hurayra, may Allah be pleased with him:

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:


'The Prophets are like brothers; they have different mothers but their life transaction is one. I am the closest of all the people to Jesus son of Mary, because there is no other Prophet between him and myself. He will come again, and when you see him, you will recognize him. He is of medium height and his colouring is reddish-white. He will be wearing two garments, and his hair will look wet. He will break the cross, kill the pigs, abolish the jizya and call the people to Islam. During his time, Allah will end every religion and sect other than Islam, and will destroy the Dajjal. Then peace and security will prevail on earth, so that lions will graze with camels, tigers with cattle, and wolves with sheep; children will be able to play with snakes without coming to any harm. Jesus will remain for forty years, then die, and the Muslims will pray for him.' (It was related by Ibn Hanbal).

And Allaah knows best.



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

[Uthman]

:sl:

The hadith says that 'Isa (pbuh) will abolish the Jizya?

What Jizya does it mean? I was under the impression that the Jizya was supposed to be part of the Shariah? Why would he abolish that?

I must be confused. What else is new. *sigh*

:w:

[rubiesand]

Salaam Br. Osman,


Why would he abolish the jizya?

See in the hadith where it says....
"Allah will end every religion and sect other than Islam"
When that happens, the jizya will become obsolete, because its only necessary when non Muslims are under the protection of the Islamic state.

[Uthman]

:sl:

Oh, of course! That makes complete sense. JazakAllahu Khayran Sister.

:w:

[- Qatada -]

:sl:

The hadith says that 'Isa (pbuh) will abolish the Jizya?

:wasalamex


Yup.

What Jizya does it mean? I was under the impression that the Jizya was supposed to be part of the Shariah?

It is, the Prophetic guidance is also a part of the Shari'a [Islamic law] right? Therefore, since Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning);

By the Star when it goes down,-

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.

Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.

It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:


[Qur'an Al Najm (the Star) 53: 1-4]

Then the hadith (Prophetic narration) which we just stated above;


"He will.. abolish the jizya and call the people to Islam..."


Then clarifies that Jesus (peace be upon him) will abolish the Jizyah, since the Prophetic sayings are also revelation - therefore a source of law.


We also know that Islaam (submission to Allaah) has always been the religion of the Prophets, since Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning):

Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account.

[Qur'an 3: 19]

None of the Prophets boasted on the fact that they were Jewish by blood or followers of Christ, rather - they all focused on submitting to Allaah Alone. This was their whole way of life.



Since Jesus is the main difference between the Jews, Christians and Muslims - when he returns, then the Jizya won't be applicable anyway. Since Jesus is a sign from Allaah;

We made her (Mary) and her son (Jesus) a sign for the worlds.

[Qur'an Al Anbiya (the Prophets) 21: 91]

Since he is the main point where the majority of mankind differ, then he will come and clear the doubts of the people, that he truly is the Messenger of Allaah (to clear the doubts of the Jews who reject him) and he will clarify that he is the servant of Allaah (to clear the doubts of the Christians who raise him to the level of God.) And to confirm that he truelly is the Messiah.



If anyone rejects him after the truth has become clear and manifest, then should they really live after they have rejected him? One of the reasons why the Jews and Christians are protected under an Islamic state is because they have belief in some of Allaah's Messengers', so they have some similarities.

Yet once the clear proof has come to them - Jesus himself! Then there will be no other option, accept him or reject him. If you reject him, you will be in the party of the Anti-Christ, and without a doubt, there will only be two parties then - the party of the true believers, and the party of those who disbelieve. Those who disbelieve will fight against those who believe, since it is a battle of truth versus falsehood, these are the end times - near the final hour before the Day of Judgement.



Without a doubt, the truth is superior, and falsehood will perish. And without a doubt, Jesus is the truth - he is the servant and Messenger of Allaah. So the party of the truthful will win, and Allaah will give them victory over those who disbelieve.

"Allah has promised to those of you who believe, and do good deeds, that He will surely grant them in the land inheritance of power as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion which He has chosen for them. And that He will change their state after fear to one of security and peace. They will worship Me alone and not associate aught with Me." (Qur'an Al-Noor (the Light) 24:55)

Why would he abolish that?

I must be confused. What else is new. *sigh*

:w:

Insha Allaah (God willing) the above has explained it well. :) And Allaah knows best.

[Uthman]

:sl:

Very well-explained. Lovely. Thanks. Misunderstandings cleared.

:w:

[Walter]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. ..why ...why ... why ... Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

Hi Mtaffi:

I understand your confusion. Let me try to shed some light on this matter.

We both agree that Jesus is the Messiah. We understand from the Old Testament Prophets (or the Books that came before) that one of the duties of the Messiah was to die for the sins of the world – and he did die and was raised up as written in the Qu’ran.

The special relationship that Jesus had with God is not always explicitly stated in the Books that came before. Jesus purposely did not reveal too much about that relationship except to confirm that God was His Father and that He was the Messiah.

Jesus did provide some glimpses into who he was, but they were glimpses. He confirmed that He could forgive sins and that He existed before Abraham; however, knowing that His hearers could not accept this new revelation, He stated “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matt 9:16-17)

Jesus later revealed why He did not put new wine, or new revelation, into old wine skins, or persons who were not wiling to receive new revelation. Some religious leaders accused Him of casting out demons by the prince of demons, resulting in the “skins” being burst, the “wine” flowing out, and the “wine skins” being ruined. Jesus then said “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matt 12:32

So speaking against, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is something that is not forgiven in this world or the next. That is why, I avoid debating about the Trinity with persons who are unfamiliar with the topic, for it is a highly complex topic. We can debate with vigour about any other topic but it is unwise and unsafe to speak irreverently about the Holy Spirit.

If you do not believe, then simply say nothing. You are not required to believe in the Trinity or in Jesus being a part of the Trinity in order to come to God. You simply have to believe that He is the Messiah, as declared in the Qu’ran, and accept the sacrifice that He has made for you, as declared in the Books that came before.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

We both agree that Jesus is the Messiah. We understand from the Old Testament Prophets (or the Books that came before) that one of the duties of the Messiah was to die for the sins of the world – and he did die and was raised up as written in the Qu’ran.

I'm sorry, it is not stated in the Qur'an that Jesus (peace be upon him) was killed or crucified.

And [We cursed them] (the Jews) for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.


And because of their (Jews) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary ا ) a grave false charge (that she has committed illegal sexual intercourse);




وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينا

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:-


Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.



And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him [(Jesus), son of (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being], before his [(Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [(Jesus)] will be a witness against them.



[Qur'an 4: 155-159]

Also, the concept of bearing someone elses deeds by default isn't a recognised concept in Islaam. Every soul is responsible for it's own good and evil deeds.

None of the children of Adam are sinful for what Adam and Eve did, rather Adam and Eve repented within their lifetime so Allaah forgave them. Every son and daughter of Adam is born sinless. Similarly, we all may sin - yet if we repent to Allaah sincerely, then Allaah is willing to forgive us for our wrongdoings. And Jesus is free of bearing other peoples deeds, rather he is greatly loved by Allaah and bears his own good, and we pray to Allaah to allow us to be with him in Paradise, along with all the Messengers of Allaah, and the righteous.





Peace.

[MTAFFI]

Hi Mtaffi:

I understand your confusion. Let me try to shed some light on this matter.

We both agree that Jesus is the Messiah. We understand from the Old Testament Prophets (or the Books that came before) that one of the duties of the Messiah was to die for the sins of the world – and he did die and was raised up as written in the Qu’ran.

The special relationship that Jesus had with God is not always explicitly stated in the Books that came before. Jesus purposely did not reveal too much about that relationship except to confirm that God was His Father and that He was the Messiah.

Jesus did provide some glimpses into who he was, but they were glimpses. He confirmed that He could forgive sins and that He existed before Abraham; however, knowing that His hearers could not accept this new revelation, He stated “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matt 9:16-17)

Jesus later revealed why He did not put new wine, or new revelation, into old wine skins, or persons who were not wiling to receive new revelation. Some religious leaders accused Him of casting out demons by the prince of demons, resulting in the “skins” being burst, the “wine” flowing out, and the “wine skins” being ruined. Jesus then said “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matt 12:32

So speaking against, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is something that is not forgiven in this world or the next. That is why, I avoid debating about the Trinity with persons who are unfamiliar with the topic, for it is a highly complex topic. We can debate with vigour about any other topic but it is unwise and unsafe to speak irreverently about the Holy Spirit.

If you do not believe, then simply say nothing. You are not required to believe in the Trinity or in Jesus being a part of the Trinity in order to come to God. You simply have to believe that He is the Messiah, as declared in the Qu’ran, and accept the sacrifice that He has made for you, as declared in the Books that came before.

Regards,
Grenville

I am not speaking against the holy spirit or Jesus, I love and respect everything about God and his prophets and his kingdom, but I never read in the bible that Jesus or the holy spirit was actually God. Since that is basically what separates Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I am just trying to figure out what is right and wrong.

[Keltoi]

I am not speaking against the holy spirit or Jesus, I love and respect everything about God and his prophets and his kingdom, but I never read in the bible that Jesus or the holy spirit was actually God. Since that is basically what separates Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I am just trying to figure out what is right and wrong.

I doubt you will discover what is "right" or "wrong" by reading posts in a forum. If you want an explanation of Christian belief on this subject, visit the Trinity thread or PM a Christian member.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-muslims.html

[MustafaMc]

So speaking against, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is something that is not forgiven in this world or the next. That is why, I avoid debating about the Trinity with persons who are unfamiliar with the topic, for it is a highly complex topic. We can debate with vigour about any other topic but it is unwise and unsafe to speak irreverently about the Holy Spirit.

Albeit from an Islamic perspective, I have an understanding of both the Son and the Father aspects of the Trinity. Can you provide information to fill in my lack of understanding about the Holy Spirit?

The verses that I have read are a mystery to me:
Jesus' conception through Matthew 1:20 & Luke 1:35, to be baptized with Matthew 3:11 & Mark 1:8, John the Baptist filled with Luke 1:15, John the Baptist's parents filled with (Elizabeth Luke 1:41 & Zacharias Luke 1:67), upon Simeon Luke 2:25, descended upon Jesus Luke 3:22, Jesus full of Luke 4:1, to teach all things John 14:26, filled disciples in upper room & gave utterance to speak in tongues.

How is one "baptized with the Holy Spirit"? What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit? What was the role in Jesus' conception?

[MustafaMc]

If the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus after his baptism by John the Baptist at the same time the Father spoke regarding Jesus being His son, how are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit one and the same God?

Jesus - standing on earth
Holy Spirit - descended from Heaven in form of a dove
Father - spoke from Heaven

Luke 3:21-22 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

If the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus after his baptism .

why one needs to be baptized ???

someone explained to me long ago ...sorry i forgot :uhwhat

[Keltoi]

If the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus after his baptism by John the Baptist at the same time the Father spoke regarding Jesus being His son, how are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit one and the same God?

Jesus - standing on earth
Holy Spirit - descended from Heaven in form of a dove
Father - spoke from Heaven

Luke 3:21-22 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

The question you just asked is why there is a concept known as the Trinity. How is this possible? With God all things are possible. From a Christian perspective, these things are to be acknowledged, but perhaps not fully understood. I know that isn't the kind of response that clears up misconceptions or sets off a lightbulb of understanding over your head, but there it is.

[doorster]

:sl:




why one needs to be baptized ???

someone explained to me long ago ...sorry i forgot :uhwhat

:sl:

Matthew 28:18-20.
Purpose of Baptism. To be saved.
Mark 16:16.
For remission of sins.
Acts 2:36-38; 22:16

Baptism Meaning: The power and significance of water baptism lies in the fact that it is a spiritual burial for the believer and a participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 6:3-4 For the believer obeying the commandment of the Lord and proclaiming his faith in the death and resurrection of the Lord, is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Mathew 28:19, before men and the heavenly court. And being completely submerged under the water, momentarily stops breathing, figuratively as a dead man. He therefore through the obedience of faith takes on the spiritual status of a dead man, and is freed from the condemnation of God's holy law Romans 6:7 which is binding only while one lives Romans 7:1, having had his sins washed away Acts 22:16 by the water and the blood of Jesus which sanctifies the water of baptism John 19:34, because whatever is touched by what is holy itself becomes holy Exodus 30:29, and the blood of Jesus was holy because He who descended from heaven was sinless. Furthermore scripture says that we have been cleansed by the 'washing of water with the word'. Ephesians 5:26 Just as Peter also testified that baptism was for forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38. And having been legally cleansed according to God's holy law, the believer is spiritually cleansed by being baptized by the Holy Spirit. Therefore rising out of the water, he has now died to sin Romans 6:7, and possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit is joined to Jesus Christ. Romans 7:4 And has through baptism become a part of His body 1 Corinthians 12:13, that is the church... God's family and kingdom.

[YusufNoor]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. Later in life, for whatever reason, I often found myself contemplating whether or not I shared the views of Christians around the world. I have recently been reading into Islam and I find that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes you only have 1 God, you only pray to 1 God or in other words, you should practice true monotheism. Christianity also claims to practice monotheism, in that the holy trinity is only one being (God), but here is my question if Jesus (pbuh) were God, then why would he have said on the cross "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" and why would he have prayed, and why would the devil have tempted him during his forty days in the desert with no food or water? And if Jesus was in fact not God, but the Messiah, as the bible says he is, then why would people of the Christian faith say prayers to Jesus, to me that is worshipping more than one God. Furthermore, why, if Christianity is a monotheist religion, do Catholics have the prayer "Hail Mary", and why patronize saints, and say prayers to them for small things, like say Saint Anthony for a parking spot or safe travel? Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

one word comes to mind reading your questions: EXACTLY! :happy:

sorry if that is not helpful. i know that Brother Keltoi will try to convince you that those are all just misconceptions or what not. but as a Muslim, we follow strict monotheism and shirk (associating partners with Allah(SWT)) is the worst sin possible.

as for the "Hail Mary", praying to someone who is dead, to pray for others, AT THE VERY LEAST viloates the trinity/oneness concept and makes those Christians that recite it like people with FOUR gods! Subhannalah!

:w:

[MustafaMc]

The question you just asked is why there is a concept known as the Trinity. How is this possible? With God all things are possible. From a Christian perspective, these things are to be acknowledged, but perhaps not fully understood. I know that isn't the kind of response that clears up misconceptions or sets off a lightbulb of understanding over your head, but there it is.

Well, not quite. I was wondering if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persona of One God, how can they exist separately and simultaneously. How can one aspect descend upon another with the third making a comment about the second? I understand that it is a mystery and that we can't comprehend God. The finite can't fathom the infinite. I guess we Muslims identify Jesus as being a finite human being and find it incomprehensible that the infinite (God) became finite.

[- Qatada -]

One thing i want to clear up is that some people may be confused what the 'Holy Spirit' is in Islaam, we as Muslims know that none of Allaah's angels disobey Him in anything, they obey Him in every commandment, and they will convey the message of Allaah if He wills.

We also know that Angel Gabriel came to many, if not all the Prophets/Messengers of Allaah. In the arabic language, he is known as 'Ruh Al Qudus' - which can also be translated as 'the Holy Spirit.'



This might clear up the concept, and maybe explain the issue of the 3

i.e. Allaah/God - the Lord of the Worlds, the Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) and the Messenger who recieves Allaah's Message, I.e. Jesus son of Mary, Moses, Muhammad and the many Prophets of Allaah (peace be upon them all.)



And Allaah knows best.

[Kashnowe]

i myself was raised in a strict catholic family and i ask the same questions. i have concluded that i am not catholic....maybe not even christian but at the moment i am organizing and rethinking my thought processes and researching \various religious texts and searching and praying to God. just God.

my mother explained to me that according to catholics jesus prayed as an example to others to teach them about prayer. he was sent as a human to be a teacher. i have read other people's ideas that Jesus never uttered the words ym God my Mod why have you forsaken me that it was jsut a mistransaltion. of course no one living now really knows the truth in that.

the vatican did away with praying to saints i believe....i think its just passed on through families now not allowed by the vatican tho. \

and ther hail mary is in fact not praying to mary it is asking mary to pray for you. "holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"

i myself have HUGE prblems with the catholic church and HUGE resentments.

[- Qatada -]

Hey coolonka.


Praying to God to guide you to what is what is loved by Him is the best thing to do;


Allaah says (translation of the meaning):

“O My slaves, all of you are astray except those whom I guide, so ask Me for guidance, and I will guide you. O My slaves, all of you are hungry except those whom I feed, so ask me for food and I will feed you. O My slaves, all of you are naked except those whom I clothe, so ask Me for clothing and I will clothe you. … O My slaves, if the first of you and the last of you, your humans and your jinn, were to stand on a single plain and ask of Me and I were to give each one what he asked for, that would not cause any loss to Me greater than what is lost when a needle is dipped into the sea.”

Narrated by Muslim (2577).

The concept of Jesus praying to God makes sense since he was a servant and Messenger of Allaah/God, therefore an example to humanity. For him to be 'god' and then pray to God is illogical.

and ther hail mary is in fact not praying to mary it is asking mary to pray for you. "holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"

Regarding the issue of praying to others to 'intercede' on their behalf to God, i'll tell you something amazing. The polytheists of old believed in God being our Creator and Sustainer.

Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning):


And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, " Allah. [God]" Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers." [Qur'an Zumar 39:38]

They believed it was God who created them and all that is in the heavens and the earth. However, what was their excuse?

“And those who take Awliyaa’ (protectors, helpers, lords, gods) besides Him (say): ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’”

[al-Zumar 39:3]


“And they worship besides Allaah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: ‘These are our intercessors with Allaah’”

[Yoonus 10:18]

So you see, they would pray to others along with God, people who had passed away, or even stone idols. They claimed that these pious people were loved by Allaah/God, and therefore claimed that we should pray to these deities in order for Allaah to accept our prayers.


The reality is, this is the essence of shirk (associating partners with God in worship.) This is the greatest sin one can ever commit, because they are worshiping others along with God, the exact message which the Prophets of God have always called against. Why worship others along with God when it's Him alone who creates you, sustains you, causes you to die, and will ressurect you again to judge you on all that you did in this life?



This is the reality - if you really are thankful to God, then why not worship Him alone and be obedient to Him?

And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allâh), I will give you more (of My Blessings), but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily! My Punishment is indeed severe."

[Qur'an Abraham 14: 7]

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.

The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]

And Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning):

Allah will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow: they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk.

And they had been guided [in worldly life] to good speech, and they were guided to the path of the Praiseworthy.


[Qur'an 22: 23-4]

Peace.

[Keltoi]

Well, not quite. I was wondering if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persona of One God, how can they exist separately and simultaneously. How can one aspect descend upon another with the third making a comment about the second? I understand that it is a mystery and that we can't comprehend God. The finite can't fathom the infinite. I guess we Muslims identify Jesus as being a finite human being and find it incomprehensible that the infinite (God) became finite.

Co-equal and co-eternal. Christ is of the nature of God, and of the substance of God, but He is not the Father. That is why the Trinity is often described as three persons. Persons, meaning intellect, emotion, and will.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, I think this passage is fairly clear...

"Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.' " Acts 5:3, 4

The Holy Spirit is also of and from God.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26

So the Father sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus refers many times to being sent by the Father. To a Christian, the evidence is quite clear from a textual basis. I'm not asking anyone to believe it. However, the assertion made by many non-Muslims that Christians believe in the Trinity "blindly" is far from the truth.

How did all three persons of the Trinity interact at the same time? I know a pastor who often says "When the three persons of the Trinity interact, God happens." The event in question was the "perfect storm", so to speak. The persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct, but exist by the Will of God.

[MustafaMc]

Co-equal and co-eternal. Christ is of the nature of God, and of the substance of God, but He is not the Father. That is why the Trinity is often described as three persons. Persons, meaning intellect, emotion, and will.

It seems strange to me for one essence/entity/substance to have 3 independent wills as exemplified by Jesus' prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. If Jesus and the Father were different manifestations of the same thing it seems that they would have the same will; however, it seems that Jesus' will was different from the Father's yet he chose to submit his will to that of the Father. I assume that since Jesus submitted his will, then he also had the freedom to disobey and follow his own desires. What would have happened if Jesus said, "Sorry, but I don't want to die for the sins of the world." and then just skipped town to live out his life in India?

How did all three persons of the Trinity interact at the same time? I know a pastor who often says "When the three persons of the Trinity interact, God happens." The event in question was the "perfect storm", so to speak. The persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct, but exist by the Will of God.

What was Jesus' physical appearance before he was born to Mary? Was it the same or different from what it is now at the right hand of the Father?

There are examples of people being filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. What did it mean when Jesus said that he would send the Comforter/Holy Spirit when it was already present?

[Keltoi]

It seems strange to me for one essence/entity/substance to have 3 independent wills as exemplified by Jesus' prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. If Jesus and the Father were different manifestations of the same thing it seems that they would have the same will; however, it seems that Jesus' will was different from the Father's yet he chose to submit his will to that of the Father. I assume that since Jesus submitted his will, then he also had the freedom to disobey and follow his own desires. What would have happened if Jesus said, "Sorry, but I don't want to die for the sins of the world." and then just skipped town to live out his life in India?

What was Jesus' physical appearance before he was born to Mary? Was it the same or different from what it is now at the right hand of the Father?

There are examples of people being filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. What did it mean when Jesus said that he would send the Comforter/Holy Spirit when it was already present?

Theologically it is thought that Christ exists in hypostasis. Meaning He was both fully human and fully divine. Christ's free will was exactly the point. Christ as human must freely choose His passion, must freely choose to act according to the will of His Father. Only then, when the process of Salvation is initiated as both a fully divine and fully human act (via the free choice of the will), can the true redemption of fallen humanity come to pass.

As for Christ's physical appearance...I'm afraid that isn't discussed by any of the Gospel writers, at least not in the context of comparing His physical appearance that they saw to how He appeared before.


As for Christ sending a Comforter/Holy Spirit, that was in the context of telling His disciples that He would return to the Father. Christ promises them that He will send to them and their new church the Holy Spirit, which will allow them to do "greater works." Yes, the Holy Spirit already existed, but Christ is telling them that the Holy Spirit will be with them even though Christ's fleshly body is not.

[MustafaMc]

Theologically it is thought that Christ exists in hypostasis. Meaning He was both fully human and fully divine. Christ's free will was exactly the point. Christ as human must freely choose His passion, must freely choose to act according to the will of His Father. Only then, when the process of Salvation is initiated as both a fully divine and fully human act (via the free choice of the will), can the true redemption of fallen humanity come to pass.

As for Christ's physical appearance...I'm afraid that isn't discussed by any of the Gospel writers, at least not in the context of comparing His physical appearance that they saw to how He appeared before.


As for Christ sending a Comforter/Holy Spirit, that was in the context of telling His disciples that He would return to the Father. Christ promises them that He will send to them and their new church the Holy Spirit, which will allow them to do "greater works." Yes, the Holy Spirit already existed, but Christ is telling them that the Holy Spirit will be with them even though Christ's fleshly body is not.

Thank you for the sincere reply. I hope that you were not offended by my questions.

[Grace Seeker]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. Later in life, for whatever reason, I often found myself contemplating whether or not I shared the views of Christians around the world. I have recently been reading into Islam and I find that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes you only have 1 God, you only pray to 1 God or in other words, you should practice true monotheism. Christianity also claims to practice monotheism, in that the holy trinity is only one being (God), but here is my question if Jesus (pbuh) were God, then why would he have said on the cross "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" and why would he have prayed, and why would the devil have tempted him during his forty days in the desert with no food or water? And if Jesus was in fact not God, but the Messiah, as the bible says he is, then why would people of the Christian faith say prayers to Jesus, to me that is worshipping more than one God. Furthermore, why, if Christianity is a monotheist religion, do Catholics have the prayer "Hail Mary", and why patronize saints, and say prayers to them for small things, like say Saint Anthony for a parking spot or safe travel? Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

You have enough good questions there to keep a seminarian busy doing research for a full year. But good question should prod people in just that way. However, I am a pastor (no longer in school only studying) and don't have quite the time to deal with each of them in equal depth. Let me first point you as Keltoi has already done to some of the other threads here which have dealt with much of this same territory. If you really feel that your specific questions aren't being addressed, please, PM me and I will be happy to return to one or two of your most important ones as needed. If you like jumping into the middle of a discussion, these posts in the "Who is the Trinity?" thread, #193 and post #244 and in the thread "Message In Christianity" post #68 and post #78 and "Who is the Trinity?, post #639 might be a good place to start.

I did note you made another interesting comment in this thread...

I am not speaking against the holy spirit or Jesus, I love and respect everything about God and his prophets and his kingdom, but I never read in the bible that Jesus or the holy spirit was actually God. Since that is basically what separates Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I am just trying to figure out what is right and wrong.

Though my Muslim friends here continually dispute this point with me, I believe that indeed Jesus not only once, but repeatedly made statements with the express purpose that we should understand him to be identifying himself as God. I can't imagine that if you were brought up a strict Catholic that you would have missed this. I'm going to have to write to Brother Benedict and let him know that some of his people are asleep at the wheel.

But to show that, at least from a Christian perspective (expect to hear differently from Muslims) that the Bible does indeed teach not only that Jesus was God, but that even Jesus himself saw it that way, let me refer you to a few of my old posts:
"Questions about Christians. Requesting answers from Christians." thread, post #607

"Message in Christianity" thread, post #124

"Who Is the Trinity?" thread, post #610







Cooloonka,


I can understand those "HUGE prblems with the catholic church and HUGE resentments". I guess I would just remind you that Jesus and the Catholic church are NOT one and the same. So, don't let some problems with fallen human beings stand between you and knowing Jesus on a personal level. If we can help you with that, I am sure there are many here who would be willing.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

The verse that you quoted is a contentious one. It can be interpreted in at least two ways. To interpret it one way would result in a major inconsistency with the Books that came before and with recorded history. To interpret it another way would allow it to be harmonious with the Books that came before and recorded history.

Let us examine the particular verse carefully.

4.157-158 - 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:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Let us look at what is not in dispute.
1. They are referring to Jews who broke their covenant with God.
2. The verses are in response to a section of these Jews that boasted about killing the Messiah.
3. The response to the Jews is that they did not kill Jesus, neither did they crucify Him.
4. There is an acknowledgement that it appeared that they killed Jesus.
5. God raised Jesus to Himself.

Now the fact is that Jesus was crucified. Therefore if we interpreted the verse to assume that Jesus was crucified but did not actually die, then we could debate this for we are not denying a historical fact. However, the verse does not allow this to be debated because it insists that the Jews did not crucify Jesus.

If the Jews did not crucify Jesus, yet Jesus was crucified, then how can this be resolved? It can be resolved by not making the assumption that the verse implies that it was the Jews that actually crucified and killed Jesus.

Who crucified and killed Jesus according to recorded history and the Books that came before? The Romans, not the Jews. The Jews cannot therefore make the claim that they killed or crucified Jesus, therefore their boast is baseless as the Qu’ran has claimed.

Since the Jews delivered Jesus to the Romans, it could appear to them that they killed and crucified Jesus, just as the Qu’ran rightly states.

To further support this interpretation, the Qu’ran concludes that God raised Jesus which is exactly what the Books before state.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Albeit from an Islamic perspective, I have an understanding of both the Son and the Father aspects of the Trinity. Can you provide information to fill in my lack of understanding about the Holy Spirit?

The verses that I have read are a mystery to me:
Jesus' conception through Matthew 1:20 & Luke 1:35, to be baptized with Matthew 3:11 & Mark 1:8, John the Baptist filled with Luke 1:15, John the Baptist's parents filled with (Elizabeth Luke 1:41 & Zacharias Luke 1:67), upon Simeon Luke 2:25, descended upon Jesus Luke 3:22, Jesus full of Luke 4:1, to teach all things John 14:26, filled disciples in upper room & gave utterance to speak in tongues.

How is one "baptized with the Holy Spirit"? What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit? What was the role in Jesus' conception?

Hi MustafaMc:

I would be happy to; however, I will need to write it carefully. As I previously wrote, this is a topic that should be presented with clear scriptural support AND with a reverential understanding that it is a subject that can ruin “old wineskins”.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Looking at the central point which you're trying to focus on Grenville, using the Gospel of John. Let's see who tried to 'kill him.'

John
Chapter 19


5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt in him." 7 2 The Jews answered, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

[...]


14 It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. 5 And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your king!" 15 They cried out, "Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?"


The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. 6 So they took Jesus, 17 and carrying the cross himself 7 he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.

From the passages stated above, it clearly shows that the priests were the Jews. And it clearly shows that they encouraged were desperate in wanting to kill him.


Now i don't believe that Jesus was God, since God doesn't die. Yet i don't find it shocking if these Jews were to attempt to kill Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him), since they also killed other Messengers of Allaah, which include Prophet Yahya [John, the Baptist.) And they even attempted to kill Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.)



So to say that it was other than Jews who attempted to kill him doesn't make sense, since that goes against your own scripture. Yet to say that the Romans got involved in trying to crucify - who they thought was Jesus - can make sense.




And Allaah knows best.




Regards.

[rav]

Shalom (Peace), from Ben Soski's:

Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure. Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms "the authorities" or "the Temple leaders" for the collective term "the Jews" in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus' death as atonement for humanity's sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus' death diverts attention from God's design.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that "what happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, "We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism." Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting "interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people."

[Keltoi]

Shalom (Peace), from Ben Soski's:

Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure. Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms "the authorities" or "the Temple leaders" for the collective term "the Jews" in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus' death as atonement for humanity's sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus' death diverts attention from God's design.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that "what happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, "We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism." Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting "interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people."

Personally, I don't really consider "who" killed Christ. I'm aware there are extremists out there who use Christianity to justify their anti-semitism, but the Christians I know view the "who" in that equation as all of mankind. It was a destined event, not something the "Jews" are to be blamed for. It is sort of an irrelevant topic to my mind.

[Grace Seeker]

Adding to what Keltoi said.... Even when I was a young child in Sunday school, I understood that it wasn't the Jewish people who killed Jesus. Instead it was a small group of leaders in Jerusalem that wanted to get rid of Jesus and Romans that carried out for them what they couldn't do for themselves simply to appease them. I've never once in 50 years of life actually heard someone blame the Jews for killing Jesus, just the authorities both Jewish and Roman.

Now, I don't live in a cave, I've heard people report that others have said it, but I've never actually heard someone say it in my presence. So, it makes me wonder if the perception that Christians think that Jews as a whole should be held accountable for Jesus' crucifixion is perhaps bigger than the reality?

[don532]

Adding to what Keltoi said.... Even when I was a young child in Sunday school, I understood that it wasn't the Jewish people who killed Jesus. Instead it was a small group of leaders in Jerusalem that wanted to get rid of Jesus and Romans that carried out for them what they couldn't do for themselves simply to appease them. I've never once in 50 years of life actually heard someone blame the Jews for killing Jesus, just the authorities both Jewish and Roman.

Now, I don't live in a cave, I've heard people report that others have said it, but I've never actually heard someone say it in my presence. So, it makes me wonder if the perception that Christians think that Jews as a whole should be held accountable for Jesus' crucifixion is perhaps bigger than the reality?

I've been a lot of places, and have never been around Bible believing Christians that "blame", or think badly of Jews, for the crucifixion of Christ.

I have heard some people say such a thing, but certainly only a few in my lifetime, and certainly nobody I thought was a believing Christian.

Remember one thing about the US. The best word to describe it is "diverse". You can find most anything here if you look in the right place, and that probably even includes some people that would say they blamed Jews for Jesus' crucifixion.

My experience with any animosity in the Jewish/Christian relationship, has been Jews really don't have much use for us Christians because of some of the things that have happened to them over time, our belief in Jesus, and the fact that Christians will witness to Jews about Jesus.

Jewish people I have been in contact with however, at least realize that Hitler was not a Christian, so we don't get the blame for that.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

We seem to be in agreement. There is no disagreement on who tried to kill Jesus. The scriptures clearly show that the corrupt Jewish leaders tried to kill him many times. However, they could not carry out a death sentence so they delivered Him to the Romans.

The Romans found Him not deserving of death and sought to release Him, but the corrupt religious leaders incited the crowd (described as “multitudes”) to demand Jesus’ crucifixion. The Romans, apparently fearing uproar, complied. However, Pilate made it clear that he did not want the blood of an innocent man on himself and washed his hands of the matter. The deceived Jewish multitudes then accepted the consequences upon themselves and their children and the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus.

So who tried to kill Jesus? The corrupt Jewish leaders. Who actually crucified Jesus? The Romans.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Rav:

The scriptures clearly state that it was not only a few corrupt religious leaders, but “all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.” (Matt 27:1) Further, these persons deceived not a few people “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” (Matt 27:20).

Does this mean that the Jews are responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion? Of course not, for the religious leaders and multitudes, while many, could not have been all of the Jews in Palestine. Therefore the Jews as a people cannot be blamed for demanding that Jesus be crucified. However, those multitudes and their children were probably among those massacred by the Romans in 70AD.

Now nobody is making any statements that can be construed in this context as anti-Semitic, therefore posting the religious statements from 1964 and 1965 denouncing anti-Semitism is completely irrelevant.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

The scriptures clearly state that it was not only a few corrupt religious leaders, but “all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.” (Matt 27:1) Further, these persons deceived not a few people “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” (Matt 27:20).

Of course, we have to be careful in interpreting what Matthew said. Given that Nicodemus was a member of the ruling council (John 3:1) and that he accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, who was also a prominent member of the council (Mark 15:43 & Luke 23:50), in claiming the body of Jesus for burial (John 19:38-40), I find it unlikely that they actually plotted to put Jesus to death. So,we are left with either a contradiction between Matthew and other gospel writers, or understanding that Matthew might have been speaking in hyperbole.


Also, I hardly think that Pilate's washing of his hands actually clears him of anything. He gave the order, he had the power to ignore everyone had he so desired. He chose to be influenced by them. He can claim that those big bad Jews made him do it, but I don't buy it for a second. His hand washing just makes him look like the weak ineffectual governor that Rome considered him to be. It doesn't absolve him of anything.

[Kashnowe]

i too grew up in a christian house going to church every sunday and catholic school yadda yadda and i never heard anyone blaming Jesus' death on the Jews. it was quite the contrary. we were always taught to have love and respect for the Jews (and everyone else for that matter) and there was absolutely no ahrd feelings towards them ever uttered. not that i heard.

and yes i have heard other people say that also but not anyone with any credibility. i tend to turn a deaf ear when i hear ignorance.......so it doesn't make much of an impact on me.

so i think this whole argument is kind of moot..............

[MustafaMc]

Personally, I don't really consider "who" killed Christ. I'm aware there are extremists out there who use Christianity to justify their anti-semitism, but the Christians I know view the "who" in that equation as all of mankind. It was a destined event, not something the "Jews" are to be blamed for. It is sort of an irrelevant topic to my mind.

I agree with this view. If Jesus was crucified (remember I am a Muslim), then it was Jesus' choice to submit his will to that of the Father and actually consent to the act. BTW Without a crucifixion, where would Christianity be today?

[YusufNoor]

Of course, we have to be careful in interpreting what Matthew said. Given that Nicodemus was a member of the ruling council (John 3:1) and that he accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, who was also a prominent member of the council (Mark 15:43 & Luke 23:50), in claiming the body of Jesus for burial (John 19:38-40), I find it unlikely that they actually plotted to put Jesus to death. So,we are left with either a contradiction between Matthew and other gospel writers, or understanding that Matthew might have been speaking in hyperbole.


Also, I hardly think that Pilate's washing of his hands actually clears him of anything. He gave the order, he had the power to ignore everyone had he so desired. He chose to be influenced by them. He can claim that those big bad Jews made him do it, but I don't buy it for a second. His hand washing just makes him look like the weak ineffectual governor that Rome considered him to be. It doesn't absolve him of anything.

Peace be unto those who follow guidance

& Greetings Gene!

me thinks that Pilates job was to keep the peace. some agitators of the "locals" convince him that in order to do that, he had to give the order. after all, at festival time in Judea emotions ring high and it's a powderkeg in the making!

HOWEVER, i, being a Muslim via "Herecy" via Roman Catholicism, would like to see where in History the romans crucified someone and then took him down THAT DAY! :?

:w:

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

1. Nicodemus

You noted:

Of course, we have to be careful in interpreting what Matthew said. Given that Nicodemus was a member of the ruling council (John 3:1) and that he accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, who was also a prominent member of the council (Mark 15:43 & Luke 23:50), in claiming the body of Jesus for burial (John 19:38-40), I find it unlikely that they actually plotted to put Jesus to death. So,we are left with either a contradiction between Matthew and other gospel writers, or understanding that Matthew might have been speaking in hyperbole.

I agree that we must be careful in our interpretations. Regarding Nicodemus, there is another possibility. We can assume that:

1. Nicodemus, while a member of the ruling council, was not a chief priest; and
2. after witnessing the beating that Jesus received at the order of the chief priests, Nicodemus succumbed to peer pressure and denied Jesus, just like Peter did.

There is scriptural support for both of these assumptions.
a) Nicodemus is not referred to as a chief priest.
b) Nicodemus came to Jesus secretly.
c) Nicodemus had already been rebuked by the chief priests and Pharisees.

2. Pilate

You also noted:

Also, I hardly think that Pilate's washing of his hands actually clears him of anything. He gave the order, he had the power to ignore everyone had he so desired. He chose to be influenced by them. He can claim that those big bad Jews made him do it, but I don't buy it for a second. His hand washing just makes him look like the weak ineffectual governor that Rome considered him to be. It doesn't absolve him of anything.

You did not present the critical component. The instruction from his wife which was accompanied by a claim of suffering. Do you really want to debate the magnitude of a wife’s influence when supported by a claim of her suffering? Let me clarify that. Do you want to be on the side of the debate that argues that her influence in this regard is not great. From the moment he read her message, Pilate had little choice in the matter.

Matt 27:19-20 - While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

3. Anti-Semitism

Now I feel compelled to respond to cooloonka, don532, Keltoi and yourself on this distancing yourselves from any claim of anti-Semitism in response to Rav’s post. There has been no accusation in this thread by anyone that any person alive today had anything to do with or bears any responsibility whatsoever for anything that happened 2,000 years ago. I do not understand this over sensitivity in this matter? Did I miss something? Has someone offended Rav in the past in this Forum which that has resulted in this rally to “baby” him? Perhaps someone can explain it to me so that I can better understand and phrase my posts accordingly.

Regards,
Grenville

[Keltoi]

Peace be unto those who follow guidance

& Greetings Gene!

me thinks that Pilates job was to keep the peace. some agitators of the "locals" convince him that in order to do that, he had to give the order. after all, at festival time in Judea emotions ring high and it's a powderkeg in the making!

HOWEVER, i, being a Muslim via "Herecy" via Roman Catholicism, would like to see where in History the romans crucified someone and then took him down THAT DAY! :?

:w:

From my understanding, Pilate didn't want Christ's body to be on display, as it would inflame His followers. Pilate's main concern was avoiding unrest and uprising.

[- Qatada -]

Hi Grenville.

1) Looking at what i quoted earlier, it becomes apparent that it was the Jews who actually tried to 'kill him.'

John
Chapter 19


[...]

The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."6 So they took Jesus, 17 and carrying the cross himself 7 he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha.

18 Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" 16 Then he [Pilate] handed him over to them (the jews) to be crucified. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.

If you disagree, then you disagree with your own religious scripture.



2) I quoted this verse previously;

And because of their (Jews) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary ا ) a grave false charge (that she has committed illegal sexual intercourse);


وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينا

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:-


Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.


And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him [(Jesus), son of (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being], before his [(Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [(Jesus)] will be a witness against them.



[Qur'an 4: 155-159]

Looking from the part in red; "they said (in boast)" - then clarifies that even if (for arguments sake) they never directly 'killed him' - the verse still doesn't contradict that. Since it isn't stated in the verse that they killed him. [However, in your own scripture it does.] In ours it only states that they boasted about 'killing him.'




3) If an army defeated their enemy, and the General was there supporting the troops. Would you agree that the General also was victorious?


Would this General then say - "We won! We defeated the enemy!!" ?


Did the general fight? No.

Was the General the cause for winning the battle? (i.e. controlling his troops) - Yes.


Can we see the similarities in the two situations which are presented i.e. of the General and of the Jews who attempted to kill Jesus son of Mary.

Yes.

So whether they directly 'killed him' or indirectly 'killed him' i.e. through the Romans, the same principles apply.



And just to clarify again, we as Muslims don't believe Jesus son of Mary, the servant, Messenger, and Messiah of Allaah to be dead, he wasn't killed, nor was he crucified. Rather Allaah raised him to Himself, and he will return again near the end times.




And Allaah knows best.





Peace.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

In the interest of accuracy, and so as not to offend Rav, instead of saying that “it was the Jews”, perhaps you can say “it was the corrupt Jewish leaders and those whom they deceived”.

To respond to each of your points.

1. John 19

You seemed to have missed out all of the verses that state that the Romans crucified Jesus.

John 19:16-23 - Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

Therefore it is clear and beyond refutation that the Romans and not the Jewish leaders and multitude crucified Jesus.

2. Qu’ran 4:157-159

Your interpretation of this verse depends on their claim of killing Jesus being accurate. As shown in item 1, the Bible declares their claim to be false and Qu’ran rightly confirms this. The Jews did not kill Jesus.

3. Your Analogy

The analogy is not applicable. It would be if you had said: two generals had one enemy. The first general killed the enemy but the second general boastfully claimed victory. The second general’s boastful claim is false.

4. Your Assertion

You asserted:

And just to clarify again, we as Muslims don't believe Jesus son of Mary, the servant, Messenger, and Messiah of Allaah to be dead, he wasn't killed, nor was he crucified. Rather Allaah raised him to Himself, and he will return again near the end times.

We are in agreement except “he wasn't killed, nor was he crucified.” This belief is not supported by the Books that came before, by the historical record, or, as shown in these recent posts, by the Qu’ran.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Hi Qatada:

In the interest of accuracy, and so as not to offend Rav, instead of saying that “it was the Jews”, perhaps you can say “it was the corrupt Jewish leaders and those whom they deceived”.

Sure, i don't mind.

To respond to each of your points.

1. John 19

You seemed to have missed out all of the verses that state that the Romans crucified Jesus.

John 19:16-23 - Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

Thank you. I've re-checked it again and it does state that.

2. Qu’ran 4:157-159

Your interpretation of this verse depends on their claim of killing Jesus being accurate. As shown in item 1, the Bible declares their claim to be false and Qu’ran rightly confirms this. The Jews did not kill Jesus.

Whether they 'killed' Jesus or not isn't really a problem for us, since it's stated in the Qur'an that the Jews boasted about killing him. It isn't stated that they killed him. So even if the Romans 'killed' him, then it wouldn't really be a problem for us to believe that they would attempt that.


There are also similar verses in regard to some Jews (of Arabia) saying that Uzair/Ezra is the son of Allaah, although they may not have believed in it. It was explicitly stated in the verse that they SAID it with their mouths.

If anyones unsure of what i mean, they can refer to this link; (this topic won't be discussed further within this thread):
http://www.islamicboard.com/304721-post23.html

3. Your Analogy

The analogy is not applicable. It would be if you had said: two generals had one enemy. The first general killed the enemy but the second general boastfully claimed victory. The second general’s boastful claim is false.

No, my analogy makes total sense. Because whether the General fought or not, he would still count himself as victorious. Even though he never got involved within the actual combat. Since in the actual situation of the event - the Jews and the Romans were both on the same side.

4. Your Assertion

You asserted:


We are in agreement except “he wasn't killed, nor was he crucified.” This belief is not supported by the Books that came before, by the historical record, or, as shown in these recent posts, by the Qu’ran.

It's stated in the Qur'an that he wasn't killed, nor was he crucified. If you interpret it one way, know that millions of other muslims disagree with your opinion.





Regards.

[ummzayd]

From my understanding, Pilate didn't want Christ's body to be on display, as it would inflame His followers. Pilate's main concern was avoiding unrest and uprising.

from where do you derive 'your understanding'? any actual source?

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Now I feel compelled to respond to cooloonka, don532, Keltoi and yourself on this distancing yourselves from any claim of anti-Semitism in response to Rav’s post. There has been no accusation in this thread by anyone that any person alive today had anything to do with or bears any responsibility whatsoever for anything that happened 2,000 years ago. I do not understand this over sensitivity in this matter? Did I miss something? Has someone offended Rav in the past in this Forum which that has resulted in this rally to “baby” him? Perhaps someone can explain it to me so that I can better understand and phrase my posts accordingly.

Rally to "baby"?????

I'm not sure what rallying you speak of. And I don't know about any distancing from claims of anti-semitism either. Has someone accused a person of being anti-Semitic?

All I know is that through the years I have heard (in my opinion, not entirely founded and yet not entirely unfounded) two different views with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus.
1) That the Gospels present the Jews as being soliciting the execution of Jesus, and thus in the opinion of some justifying the statement that the Jews are responsible for the killing of Jesus. Over the course of centuries this view has been expressed by many, but in the USA most notably by the KKK.
2) I have also heard a very strong reaction to this view. The reaction holds that the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic because they say things that people like the KKK can use to develop their views, so it must be that the Gospels have that viewpoint themselves. In recent years I have heard this opinion expressed by groups as widely diverse as the Jewish anti-defamation league to the ACLU.

I don't think either group has a case. And my response was to simply tell my story and what I grew up with as my childhood understanding in reaction to those who might think that either of these views has any merit or is typical of teaching in the Christian church today.

[don532]

Now I feel compelled to respond to cooloonka, don532, Keltoi and yourself on this distancing yourselves from any claim of anti-Semitism in response to Rav’s post. There has been no accusation in this thread by anyone that any person alive today had anything to do with or bears any responsibility whatsoever for anything that happened 2,000 years ago. I do not understand this over sensitivity in this matter? Did I miss something? Has someone offended Rav in the past in this Forum which that has resulted in this rally to “baby” him? Perhaps someone can explain it to me so that I can better understand and phrase my posts accordingly.

No offense taken and no such response necessary, in my opinion. I wouldn't be concerned. Simply telling what I know on the subject.

[Grace Seeker]

from where do you derive 'your understanding'? any actual source?

peace

These links An Archaeological Note on Crucifixion and Science replays crucifixion will fill you in on some of the varying aspects of crucifixion as practiced by the Romans. They used more than one method for it, and the results would vary considerably depending on the method used, the amount of torture preceeding it, and the general health of the individual. Sometimes crucifixion could last for days, and sometimes it could be over in hours. But once done, the usual Roman response was to simply leave the bodies to rot in place. There were exceptions to this, however. The first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote of receiving permission to rescue two of his friends from the cross after they had already been crucified. One of them nevertheless still died, but one of them survived.

Another of those exceptions was in practice at the time that Jesus was executed. The Jews who had been persuasive in having Jesus executed would not have wanted either his or any of the other bodies left on their crosses over the Jewish holiday of Passover. So there would be as much social pressure on the Romans to remove them from the crosses as there was to have Jesus crucified, something we see that Pilate was more than willing to acquiesce to. This is the reason we see given in the gospel accounts for the breaking of the legs of the other men, in order to hasten their death so that they could be removed from their crosses before the beginning of the Sabbath at nightfall. Most likely the Romans would have just thrown their bodies in the garbage heap. However, again Josephus fills us in on other customs, that the Jews practiced burial of their dead, even of the condemned, as this was Jewish law, "they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun." (Source - Josephus, Autobiography, ch. 75; "Wars of the Jews", IV, v.2)

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

You wrote:

Whether they 'killed' Jesus or not isn't really a problem for us, since it's stated in the Qur'an that the Jews boasted about killing him. It isn't stated that they killed him. So even if the Romans 'killed' him, then it wouldn't really be a problem for us to believe that they would attempt that.

The Qu’ran does state rather explicitly that the corrupt Jewish leaders did not kill Jesus: “but they killed him not, nor crucified him”. Therefore if the corrupt Jewish leaders did not crucify Jesus as the Qu’ran has stated, then there is no basis for interpreting the verse to claim that Jesus was not crucified at all. The likely interpretation of the verse is that the Jewish claim of killing the Muslim’s Messiah is baseless.

This interpretation is consistent with recorded history and the Books that came before and the Qu’ran. Of course the millions that you referred to are free to believe, without question, the religious Islamic tradition that may teach otherwise. However, it is much more beneficial to try to determine what is true.

Regards,
Grenville

[rav]

Now I feel compelled to respond to cooloonka, don532, Keltoi and yourself on this distancing yourselves from any claim of anti-Semitism in response to Rav’s post. There has been no accusation in this thread by anyone that any person alive today had anything to do with or bears any responsibility whatsoever for anything that happened 2,000 years ago. I do not understand this over sensitivity in this matter? Did I miss something? Has someone offended Rav in the past in this Forum which that has resulted in this rally to “baby” him? Perhaps someone can explain it to me so that I can better understand and phrase my posts accordingly.

Shalom (Peace),

I require no one to 'baby me' at all. All I did was post an article that spoke on the topic about Judaism, Christianity, and the politics of the time when the Gospels were written. I'm afraid that nothing of any sort has happened on this forum. I would love a truthful answer towards Christians views of Jews in this regard though, especially since thousands of years of persecution of Jews by Christians has been done particularly by people who claim we as Jews are 'Jesus killers'. Consequently, I can understand why someone would desire to distance themselves from such a sadistic and hazardous ideology.

[- Qatada -]

Okay then grenville, let's see what it says after “but they killed him not, nor crucified him”.

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينا


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:-

Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.


And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him [(Jesus), son of (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being], before his [(Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [(Jesus)] will be a witness against them.


[Qur'an 4: 155-159]

This then proves that it did appear to them as if he was killed or crucified, although it isn't mentioned whether it was them who did this act (i.e. the Jews putting the penalty into practise.)


Some scholars have stated that there may have been another who was crucified, who resembled him in looks [it's stated in the verse that 'it was made to appear to them.'] Infact, the Gospel of Barnabas states that it was Juda who betrayed Jesus, and therefore this punishment would be befitting for him. However, if you don't accept this view, then it's simply an opinion by some scholars based on other evidences. So it doesn't mean that this opinion is authentic.



So like i've stated earlier, even if the Jews didn't 'kill him' - the Romans could have, and there is no contradiction in our texts in regard to that. I also explained that them Jews who got involved in trying to crucify him - even if they never performed the punishment - they were on the side of the Romans, and therefore would count themselves as the 'crucifiers' of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him.)


Even if them Jews boasted about 'killing him' - that still doesn't mean they did it. They could have said something with their mouths, although they never really meant it, and i've given the example of them (the Jews in the Arabian peninsula at that time in history) saying with their mouths that Ezra is the son of Allaah. Although this isn't mentioned within the OT.





Regards.

[Keltoi]

Shalom (Peace),

I require no one to 'baby me' at all. All I did was post an article that spoke on the topic about Judaism, Christianity, and the politics of the time when the Gospels were written. I'm afraid that nothing of any sort has happened on this forum. I would love a truthful answer towards Christians views of Jews in this regard though, especially since thousands of years of persecution of Jews by Christians has been done particularly by people who claim we as Jews are 'Jesus killers'. Consequently, I can understand why someone would desire to distance themselves from such a sadistic and hazardous ideology.

I can only speak in terms of what I was taught and the Christianity I've been exposed to. Never have I heard a pastor, preacher, minister, etc blame Jews for the death of Christ. I'm well aware of the history between Christianity and European Jews, and the effect of Passion Plays on the Christian population. There is no way to avoid the obvious connection between European anti-semitism and Christianity. However, people who wish to hate will use religion to justify it, we know this from modern events. I suppose Christians and Jews can take some solace in the fact that this problem, while not eradicated, has been drastically improved.

[snakelegs]

good book. fat, but very readable.
written by a born and practicing catholic.
constantine's sword: the church and the jews
by james carroll

since the holocaust i think there has been some effort on the part of many christians to address this issue.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

Let us examine this issue in its proper context.

From 4:153 to 4:157, the Israelites’ unfaithfulness to God in the past is presented. Then the Qu’ran accuses the Jews of continuing this behaviour during the time of Mohammed.

4:156 - That they rejected Faith;

4:156 - that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

4:157 - That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";

In each instance, they are accused of doing something wrong. However, since the reader would be clearly confused by the charge in 4:157, since it would seem to conflict with the Books that came before and with recorded history, it is provided with an explanation.

4:157 - 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:-

The explanation is provided by stating “they killed him not”. Then what is the purpose of stating “but so it was made to appear to them”? This provided a basis for their boast otherwise the boast would not make any sense, for it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified.

You wrote:

So like i've stated earlier, even if the Jews didn't 'kill him' - the Romans could have, and there is no contradiction in our texts in regard to that. I also explained that them Jews who got involved in trying to crucify him - even if they never performed the punishment - they were on the side of the Romans, and therefore would count themselves as the 'crucifiers' of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him.)

This supports what I am writing. This is how “it was made to appear to them”.

Now as said previously, you are free to interpret this either to conflict with historical facts, or to be in harmony with those facts.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Shalom (Peace),

I require no one to 'baby me' at all. All I did was post an article that spoke on the topic about Judaism, Christianity, and the politics of the time when the Gospels were written. I'm afraid that nothing of any sort has happened on this forum. I would love a truthful answer towards Christians views of Jews in this regard though, especially since thousands of years of persecution of Jews by Christians has been done particularly by people who claim we as Jews are 'Jesus killers'. Consequently, I can understand why someone would desire to distance themselves from such a sadistic and hazardous ideology.

You don't think you received a "truthful answer" from Don, Keltoi, and myself? I admit I really wasn't aware of a question so I wasn't trying to provide an answer. But what I wrote was certainly truthful with regard to my views toward Jews of Jesus' day with regard to his crucifixion, and I think the others have as well. Can you form an actual question for me if you feel that the issue hasn't been addressed in appropriate enough, full enough, or specific enough ways?

[dpartlow]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. Later in life, for whatever reason, I often found myself contemplating whether or not I shared the views of Christians around the world. I have recently been reading into Islam and I find that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes you only have 1 God, you only pray to 1 God or in other words, you should practice true monotheism. Christianity also claims to practice monotheism, in that the holy trinity is only one being (God), but here is my question if Jesus (pbuh) were God, then why would he have said on the cross "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" and why would he have prayed, and why would the devil have tempted him during his forty days in the desert with no food or water? And if Jesus was in fact not God, but the Messiah, as the bible says he is, then why would people of the Christian faith say prayers to Jesus, to me that is worshipping more than one God. Furthermore, why, if Christianity is a monotheist religion, do Catholics have the prayer "Hail Mary", and why patronize saints, and say prayers to them for small things, like say Saint Anthony for a parking spot or safe travel? Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

Here is the anwer to the question about what He said on the cross
He was quoting a Psalm which prophesied the persecution of the Christ.
This 1000 year old prophesy had just been fulfilled. Here is my poetic rendition of the prophesy and fulfillment(the part you reference is about half way through):

Seven Words Seven Echos:

Father forgive them, they know not what they do...

He that is without sin among you, Let him cast the first round.
And again he stooped down, And wrote upon the ground.

And they which heard it, convicted by conscience, Went out one by one, beginning at the eldest,
Even unto the last: until Jesus was left alone, And the woman was still standing in his midst.

Woman, where are your accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?
No man, Lord…. Neither do I condemn you, Go, and from your sins be free.

A gift of happy life: His law is for the people, Not the other way around.
Yea, the law is not nullified, but in repentance He cuts us free from the ropes of sin which bound.

Truly, Today You will be with me in paradise...

Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? What is written in the law? What there do you find?
You shall love the Lord your God With all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.

And also, Love your neighbor as yourself…. You have answered right, do this and you shall live.
And your neighbors are everywhere, whatever you give even unto the least of them, to me you also give.

The kingdom of heaven is like a tiny grain of mustard seed,
A man took it, and sowed it in his field. The mustard seed is the least of all indeed.

But when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becomes a mighty tree, the biggest and the best
So that the birds of the air may rest and lodge in the Branches thereof, make their home, their eternal nest

Mother behold thy son. Son, behold thy mother...

Blessed are your ears, for they hear and blessed are your eyes, for they see.
Truly, Many prophets and righteous men have desired to hear and see as do thee.

But many have not yet seen nor heard. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
That you may find fertile soil in the hearts of men as the grower, reaper, and mower.

He that despises you, despises me and in despising me and the Father, earns reflexive shun.
For, I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except by the Son.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only Son that all who believe in him should never perish
For God sent not him into the world not to condemn, but to love and save and cherish.

I thirst...

They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he rejected.
They crucified him, parted his garments, and cast lots: fulfilled as the prophets had projected.

They part my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots
And from the sixth until the ninth hour a darkness covers the whole land and out the sunlight blots

And at the ninth hour… My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me? So far from helping and hearing my words of my roaring, Art ye.

O my God, They cried unto you, and were delivered: they trusted in you, deliverance you have bourn.
But I am a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn:

They shoot out the lip, shake the head, He trusted on the Lord to be delivered: let the Lord decide his rest.
But thou art he that took me from the womb and did make me hope when I was upon my mother's breast.

I was cast upon you from the womb: you art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to apply the soothing Gilead jelly.

Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion, as a rabid hound.

I am poured out like water, all my bones are out of joint: my heart like wax melted and sunk to my bowels.
My strength dried up like a potsherd; I’m brought to the dust of death, my tongue cleaveth to my jowls.

Dogs compass me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed piercing hands and feet. My blood now clots.
I see all my bones: looking back and staring at me. They part my garments and for my vesture casting lots.

But be not thou far from me, O Lord my strength, hasten to my aid. For when the afflicted cried you heard.
The meek shall be satisfied: they that seek shall praise the Lord and heart shall live for ever with his Word.

All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord. All kindreds of the nations shall bow down
They shall worship you. For the kingdom is the Lord's. He is the governor of all nation, land, and town.

A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, this grain of corn.
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born.

And, behold, upon his final word the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom in pieces twain,
And the earth quaked, the rocks rent; open broke the grave, and a reprieve for us did he obtain.

Death and the grave have been conquered, forever vanquished:
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit... It is finished.

[- Qatada -]

Hi Grenville.


I think you don't see which perspective i'm coming from, so i'll place it into perspective insha Allah (God willing.)

4:156 - That they rejected Faith;

4:156 - that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

From that verse, we see that it's stated that they really did them acts. I.e. they rejected faith [while rejecting Allaah's Messengers'], and that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.

Those two points are real, and there is no confusion for me or you over that. Since it's clearly stated that they did them acts.




Then, the verse after;

4:157 - That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";

I explained to you earlier about the analogy of the General claiming victory, even though he never fought in the battle (rather his troops did.) What did the General do when sending his troops to fight? He encouraged them to fight and kill. Although he himself never fought.

Why did i use this analogy? To show that the Jews boasted about killing him, although they may not have been involved in the direct crucifixion. They did encourage the crucifixion, therefore claimed themselves to be the killers (at the time of Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him), while boasting about it in pride.




Let's look at the account from the 'Gospel of John':

John
Chapter 19


5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!"

This account tells us that these Jewish chief priests told the Roman soldiers to "Crucify him!" repeatedly.



You then quoted me what the Romans did;

John 19:16-23 - Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

From there, we see that the Jewish priests encouraged the crucifixion, and then the Romans performed the crucifixion. Agreed?





Then the verse continues;

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:-

The Romans who performed the crucifixion, and the Jewish priests who saw the event take place actually believed that it was really Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) being crucified. I don't doubt that, since it's stated in the verse; "..it was made to appear to them..."


What does this mean? This mean's that when the crucifixion took place, it wasn't Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) being crucified.

Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Then i've explained that there may have been another man who was crucified, who had similar looks to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) caste over him. It could have been a traitor, i.e. Juda (mentioned in the Gospel of Barnabas.)




So to summarise; Even if it's mentioned in historical records that Jesus son of Mary was crucified, we do not believe this. Although it may have seemed this way to the Romans and the Jewish priests. [They may have thought this due to Jesus's image being caste over someone else, i.e. Juda.]



Why couldn't Jesus son of Mary be killed?

1) Jesus has to return since he is the Messiah/Christ, and once someone dies, they do not return to this world. So Jesus has not faced death yet, and he will only face it once he returns to the earth after he has fulfilled his mission. I.e. the true battle between truth and falsehood, belief vs disbelief etc.

2) Jesus was not God, and i've explained that here;
http://www.islamicboard.com/794662-post4.html

To believe he is God and that 'god died' is a false and evil belief.

And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him [(Jesus), son of (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being], before his [(Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [(Jesus)] will be a witness against them.

[Qur'an 4: 155-159]

It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah ," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied."

Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (To Allah in Islam)?


[Qur'an 3: 79-80]

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

Thank you for clarifying your perspective on this matter. Your interpretation is logical and is supported by the contextual verses. However, it is in conflict with the Books that came before and with recorded history.

If you want to assume that someone else was crucified in Jesus’ place, then you must provide some credible evidence of that claim. Are there other verses in the Qu’ran that support that claim? Are there any verses in the Codex Sinaiticus, or any other Bible that would have been easily available to Mohammed, that support that claim? Have any historians made that claim? If not, then it would be prudent to interpret the verse in a way that is consistent with the historical facts - if this can be done without being intellectually dishonest. Fortunately, the verse can be interpreted in accordance with recorded history while maintaining the integrity of the verse.

In support of Jesus not being crucified, you quoted:

Jesus has to return since he is the Messiah/Christ, and once someone dies, they do not return to this world.

Since you used this argument to support your view that Jesus could not have been crucified, please provide some evidence of this belief. Please note that at the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah returned to the Earth and talked with Jesus before He died.

Have a great weekend everyone.
Grenville

[MustafaMc]

Hi Qatada:

Thank you for clarifying your perspective on this matter. Your interpretation is logical and is supported by the contextual verses. However, it is in conflict with the Books that came before and with recorded history.

More important than the crucifixion, the Quran is in direct conflict with the NT over Jesus being the Son of God.

Quran 5:17
Indeed those have committed Kufr (rejected faith) who said, "God is the Messiah, son of Maryam." O Muhammad, ask them, "Who has the power to prevent Allah if He chose to destroy the Messiah the son of Maryam, his mother and all that is in the earth? Allah has the sovereignty over the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He pleases and has power over everything".

If you want to assume that someone else was crucified in Jesus’ place, then you must provide some credible evidence of that claim.

Why must we prove what the Quran says with so called historical evidence? We accept what it says as the Word of Allah and that is good enough for me.

Brother Qatada has already quoted Quran 4:157
They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).

Are there other verses in the Qu’ran that support that claim? Are there any verses in the Codex Sinaiticus, or any other Bible that would have been easily available to Mohammed, that support that claim?

What evidence do you have that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) had access to the Christian Bible or that he read it?

Have any historians made that claim? If not, then it would be prudent to interpret the verse in a way that is consistent with the historical facts - if this can be done without being intellectually dishonest.

So you accuse us Muslims of intellectual dishonesty because we believe what the Quran says over the NT and so-called historical record? We don't "interpret" the Quran just to make it say what we may want it to say in order for it to be more "believable".

Fortunately, the verse can be interpreted in accordance with recorded history while maintaining the integrity of the verse.

In support of Jesus not being crucified, you quoted:
Since you used this argument to support your view that Jesus could not have been crucified, please provide some evidence of this belief.

We don't have to have evidence for our belief beyond what the Quran says. I have absolutely no evidence of life after death, Heaven or Hell, or even of angels, but yet I believe.

Please note that at the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah returned to the Earth and talked with Jesus before He died.

Have a great weekend everyone.
Grenville

After Jesus was transfigured did he get transfigured back to normal form before the "crucifixion" and then back again to "spiritual form" for accension?

[Walter]

Hi MustafaMc:

I was just leaving the office when I saw this:

So you accuse us Muslims of intellectual dishonesty because we believe what the Quran says over the NT and so-called historical record?

Of course not. Please review my post. Since the verse can be interpreted both ways, without damaging the integrity of the verse, and without having to be intellectually dishonest, then it would be prudent to interpret it a way that is consistent with recorded history.

I will respond to the rest of your post next week. Have a great weekend.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Hi Grenville.


The reason why i used this interpretation is because:


1) this was the interpretation of the classical scholars.

2) If we are to use your interpretation, the "..it was made to appear to them..." part of the verse wouldn't be there, but since it is - it supports point 1 even further.





Regards.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

You wrote:

The reason why i used this interpretation is because: 1) this was the interpretation of the classical scholars.

Please be advised that even the Tafsirs acknowledge that this verse lends itself to more than one interpretation. Since this verse is the most contentious verse in the entire Qu’ran, then why would you wish to interpret it in a way that is not supported by recorded history, and in a way that is not supported by any other verse in the Qu’ran. Why this refusal to interpret the verse in a way that supports recorded history and is in harmony with the rest of the Qu’ran and the entire Bible?

Regards,
Grenville

[silkworm]

Jesus Christ pbuh said nothing about himself of being a God or that he should be worshipped:

Gospel of John

Chapter 14, Verse 28
Chapter 10, Verse 29

Gospel of Matthew

Chapter 12, Verse 28


Gospel of Luke

Chapter 11, Verse 20
Chapter 5, Verse 30


Thanks

[ISLAMASWEENEY]

Jesus is not god Allah is god.

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus Christ pbuh said nothing about himself of being a God or that he should be worshipped:

Gospel of John

Chapter 14, Verse 28
Chapter 10, Verse 29

Gospel of Matthew

Chapter 12, Verse 28


Gospel of Luke

Chapter 11, Verse 20
Chapter 5, Verse 30


Thanks

Don't read those passages in isolation from these:

Luke 19
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"[b]
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"

40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

Luke 5
20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."

21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

22Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 24But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 25Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, "We have seen remarkable things today."

John 10
30[Jesus said:] "I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Matthew 26
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.

Luke 22
66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67"If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

One does not have to explicit state "I am God" to be making a claim to be God. The way that Jesus used the phrase "Son of God" was a claim to diety. This was clearly understood that way by the Jews who used that as sufficient reason with one another to have Jesus put to death. Their charge against him would have been blasphemy. Of course, the Romans could care less about that, so with Pilate they charged Jesus with sedition against the state. That Jesus ascribed to himself diety is so clear that, even today, Jews who read the Gospel label Jesus with the charge of blasphemy.

[Walter]

Hi MustafaMc:

Why must we prove what the Quran says with so called historical evidence? We accept what it says as the Word of Allah and that is good enough for me.

Brother Qatada has already quoted Quran 4:157
They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).


What evidence do you have that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) had access to the Christian Bible or that he read it?

Please note that much of what you have queried has already been responded to in this thread. Please read my discussion with Qatada and then let me know what specifically you disagree with.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Hey Grenville.


I stated in my earlier post;

2) If we are to use your interpretation, the "..it was made to appear to them..." part of the verse wouldn't be there, but since it is - it supports point 1 even further.

Why would this part of the verse be stated if the crucifixion took place of Jesus son of Mary? It's clear and apparent in the verse that he never got killed, and the only difference you've shown is whether it was the Jews or Christians who performed the crucifixion. And even then, there's nothing contradictory in our texts in regard to that.




Regards.

[Grace Seeker]

Why would this part of the verse be stated if the crucifixion took place of Jesus son of Mary?

Sorry, I can't answer your question and keep the rules I agreed to abide by when I registered on this forum. So, it will have to remain unanswered.

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

You raised a good point. Please remember that I have already acknowledged that there is some merit in your interpretation of this verse. However, since it is the most contentious verse in the Qur’an, let us see whether there is another logical interpretation.

Why is the phrase “it was made to appear to them” inserted. Well let us review the verse once more:

4:157, 158 - 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:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Qatada, let us try to agree with what the “it” refers to in “but so it was made to appear to them” in order to more accurately interpret the verse. The “it” can either be their boast "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" or it could be the response “but they killed him not, nor crucified him”. If we agree with that, then let us move on, otherwise please provide another reference to “it”.

Regardless of which of these options you select, they both support the interpretation that the Jews (the “we “ in “We killed Christ” and the “they” in “but they killed Him not”) did not kill Jesus nor did they crucify Him, but the Romans did.

If we assume that the “it” refers to “he was not killed, nor was he crucified”, then that would clearly and irrefutably support your interpretation. However, the verse does not say that. Further, no other verse that I am aware of in the Qur’an supports the idea that Jesus was not crucified. If you know of another one, then please provide it, otherwise, you should be willing to look at another interpretation of this verse.

Regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Hey Grenville.


From the verse, we see that the:

4:157, 158 - 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:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

The part in blue follows up with the part in orange, i.e. that they 'killed him not, nor crucified him' 'but so it was made to appear to them' and this is the clear explanation. That they never killed him, nor crucified him - but it was made to appear to them.



It's not on my part to find another interpretation, since you're contradicting all the classical scholars of our religion, and i'm sure that none of them have ever come up with the conclusion that you've stated.


Why do i say this? Because if someone is to say that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) died - then they are saying that a person can return back to this world when this is not the case in Islam. Once someone dies/tastes death, they move on to the Barzakh [the life in between this life and the life of the hereafter] - so if Jesus son of Mary was to die, he wouldn't be able to return back to this world, and therefore he wouldn't be the Christ/Messiah. Since it's only the Christ/Messiah who will fight and defeat the Anti-Christ.


What's my proof that Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him still has to return?

Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.

And if it were Our Will, We could make angels from amongst you, succeeding each other on the earth.

And he ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] shall be a known sign for (the coming of) the Hour (Day of Resurrection) [i.e. 'Iesa's (Jesus) descent on the earth] . Therefore have no doubt concerning it (i.e. the Day of Resurrection). And follow Me (Allah) (i.e. be obedient to Allah and do what He orders you to do, O mankind)! This is the Straight Path (of Islamic Monotheism, leading to Allah and to His Paradise).

And let not Shaitan (Satan) hinder you (from the right religion, i.e. Islamic Monotheism), Verily, he (Satan) to you is a plain enemy.

And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, "I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.

"For Allah, He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way."

But the denominations from among them differed [and separated], so woe to those who have wronged from the punishment of a painful Day.


[Qur'an 43: 59-65]

What are my proofs that Jesus is human:

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (Qur'an 5:75).

Until, when death comes to one of them (those who join partners with Allah), he says: "My Lord! Send me back,

"So that I may do good in that which I have left behind!" No! It is but a word that he speaks, and behind them is Barzakh (a barrier) until the Day when they will be resurrected.


[Qur'an 23: 100-1]

So we see from the two verses above that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them) was a human, and so was his mother. And from the second set of verses we see that when someone dies, behind them is a Barzakh/a barrier until the Day of Ressurection, and they cannot return to this world.

Therefore to argue that Jesus son of Mary died, this would contradict our beliefs anyway, therefore that argument isn't valid from both sides.







Regards.

[back_to_faith]

The “it” can either be their boast "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" or it could be the response “but they killed him not, nor crucified him”. If we agree with that, then let us move on, otherwise please provide another reference to “it”.

Regardless of which of these options you select, they both support the interpretation that the Jews (the “we “ in “We killed Christ” and the “they” in “but they killed Him not”) did not kill Jesus nor did they crucify Him, but the Romans did.

Regards,
Grenville

Where in the text is the slightest hint that the Roman did?

under your line of reasoning ....the following verse


Holy Quran 5:110 Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'

Allah will remind his prophet of his bless upon him and how he saved him from the Jews ,and let him to the Romans to crucify him !!!!

Does it make sense to you?!!

The “it” refers obviously to "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"

nothing Quranic ,or based on authentic Hadiths , has the slightest hint of a Roman crucifiction,nor someone else was put to death instead of Jesus

The best interpretation to the verse I ever read and feel convinced to ,is the following by the Genius scholar Muhammad Asad :

(excert from Translation of Holy Quran, Translated and Explained by M Asad)

http://www.geocities.com/masad02/

the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500).


Regards, BTF

[Grace Seeker]

The best interpretation to the verse I ever read and feel convinced to ,is the following by the Genius scholar Muhammad Asad :

(excert from Translation of Holy Quran, Translated and Explained by M Asad)

http://www.geocities.com/masad02/

the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500).


Regards, BTF

That interpretation hardly does justice to the Qur'an.

As the author indicates, the Qur'an says, "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so".

One must ask the question of the text, to whom does the term "them" apply? The author of this interpreation suggests that there was no crucifixion at all, and that it arose as a legend. That would make the "them" to whom it appeared that Jesus had died the later church that canonized this story. But it reads much more in harmony with the rest of the Qur'an to understand those being referred to by the pronoun "them" to be bystanders of an actual crucifixion. To these bystanders some one could "appear" to be Jesus who wasn't. But if the pronoun "them" refers to the later church as concotters of a fabriced story, then there would be no one to "appear" to them.

[back_to_faith]

That interpretation hardly does justice to the Qur'an.

As the author indicates, the Qur'an says, "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so".

One must ask the question of the text, to whom does the term "them" apply? The author of this interpreation suggests that there was no crucifixion at all, and that it arose as a legend. That would make the "them" to whom it appeared that Jesus had died the later church that canonized this story. But it reads much more in harmony with the rest of the Qur'an to understand those being referred to by the pronoun "them" to be bystanders of an actual crucifixion. To these bystanders some one could "appear" to be Jesus who wasn't. But if the pronoun "them" refers to the later church as concotters of a fabriced story, then there would be no one to "appear" to them.

Greetings ,Seeker

I have just read your post.....

but ,sadly I have to sleep now

wish I had time to respond ..but it needs time. and I will explain in details why this interpretation makes sense for me,tomorrow inshaAllah..

peace

[back_to_faith]

That interpretation hardly does justice to the Qur'an.

As the author indicates, the Qur'an says, "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so".

One must ask the question of the text, to whom does the term "them" apply? The author of this interpreation suggests that there was no crucifixion at all, and that it arose as a legend. That would make the "them" to whom it appeared that Jesus had died the later church that canonized this story. But it reads much more in harmony with the rest of the Qur'an to understand those being referred to by the pronoun "them" to be bystanders of an actual crucifixion. To these bystanders some one could "appear" to be Jesus who wasn't. But if the pronoun "them" refers to the later church as concotters of a fabriced story, then there would be no one to "appear" to them.

Greetings,

1-The term (them) refers without doubt to the Jews.

2-according to the interpretation, there would be no one to "appear" to them,there would be something fancied to them.

let's analyse the verses under discussion objectively,in order to see whether such interpretation makes sense:

. verse 4:156-159 "That they(The Jews) rejected Faith; That they(The Jews) uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they(The Jews) 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(The issue of crucificion) was made to appear to them so, and those(The Jews or those alike who accepted,or pretended to accept the hearsay un-verified account) who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power.

the verses mention:

1-The Jews falsely claimed that they killed Jesus The son of Mary (pbuh).

2-The Quran denies that such crucifiction ever happened.

3-The Quran shows that .and in light of the fact that not one Jew(and others too) ever witnessed a crucifiction,so their claim that Jesus was cricified was something fancied to them,why? because it was based on a hearsay account......

4- and that is what the text showed further:

(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)
thoses,refers to all those(including Jews or others) who differd regarding the (crucifiction issue) are:

A-full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge eg;Eyewitnesses testimonies.
B-Had only conjecture to follow.

There is nothing strange at all,regarding a false propaganda telling that a famous person has been killed,especially if such person disappeared from the scene (Allah raised him ).



Now let's analyse the other interpretation:

Sale:
[004:157] and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness;

Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:
[004:157] And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man),


the above translations seem to be inaccurate:why?

first of all, it is not linguistically, possible

1-if the pronoun(Ha) of the word(Shubbeha) refers to Jesus ,then the verse to be translated as follows:

(but the resemblance of another man was put over Jesus (pbuh) !!!)
the previous verse (And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah (Jesus), son of (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him) mentions nothing regarding a man whom his resemblance was put over Jesus (pbuh) ,and nothing about the opposite too....

imam zamakshari in his Quranic Tafseer ,highlighted this issue well.


second: If the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and witnessed all that,
upon what basis they :
differd therein ,were full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow ?
If the man was 100% similar to jesus,logically there would be no motive for them to differ and follow conjecture.

one might argue ,that they crucified another person similar ,and heard the disciples saying that he wasn't jesus as jesus is still alive.
we have problems here:

1-That is not Quranic claim.

2-If they got such correction from the disciples part, then we have either:
A-they verified that he is still alive,so no motive for differing and following conjecture then.
B- they couldn,t verify that ,hence again no motives for them to differ whether he was Jesus or someone else ,If they crucified someone exactly similar to Jesus ,then logically there would be no motive to differ,get confused by a (unverfied claim) by his zealous disciples.


Now we have interesting Question:

What would be if we find in the Quran a verse claims that the disciples never witnessed Jesus' last days and believed the Jews' claim of crucifiction?

the answer:

there would be no problem at all, it is a case of a sincere disciple who believed that Jesus the servant of God was killed by the Jews ,as previous great prophets were killed by their hands too.....
If a disciple or even some christian early sects who belived in Jesus message as a prophet who preached them the Gospel, true monotheism ,keeping the commandments etc..,and such great prophet faced the same end that other great prophets faced before.....,we have no reason at all to consider such persons,sects as misbelievers,
they were just misinformed regarding the last days of Jesus,which holds no merit compared with the facts regarding the message he preached.
for the sake of argument,imagine if the prophet Mohamed peace be upon him never said how he will die,and he died a natural death,but his followers believed him to be killed ,using a hearsay account, Do you think if they lived and died believing in that ,to be considered as misbelievers?lacking faith? I don't think so
when should we consider them misbelievers?

If they believed that ,the claim they heard (Mohamed pbuh was killed),has something to do with alien concepts to his teachings such as (blood atonment,salvation through blood etc)....

Holy Quran 22:37 It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.

Proverbs 21:3
"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."




Seeker plz do me a favor....
if you wish to go on discussing this matter,I suggest we do it in the your thread.
(things in islam I'm curious about)....

just copy my post there. and thanx

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Interesting, but now I've got several days of work I have to attend to before I can devote any serious amount of time in discussion here. I will attempt to respond next week, and if I fail to someone, please, PM me.

[Walter]

Hi Back to Faith:

Please note that you have based your entire interpretation of this verse upon the following critical and unsupported assumption.

“2-The Quran denies that such crucifiction ever happened.”

The Qur’an does not deny that the crucifixion occurred, nor does it deny that Jesus was crucified. It says that the Jews did not crucify Him. Further, if Mohammed truly believed that Jesus was not crucified, then given the significance of such a claim, it would certainly have been supported elsewhere in the Qur’an as his other contentious claims have been. However, it does not appear to be.

There is no doubt that the verse can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was not crucified. However, only if the assumption that He was not crucified is supported elsewhere in the Qur’an. Since it does not appear to be, and since another interpretation exists that is in harmony with the rest of the Qur’an, then why this resistance to at least consider it.

Regards,
Grenville

[جوري]

Dear Grenville.. the Quran does deny the crucifiction of Jesus, and especially denies his Divinity.. I have quoted for your viewing some excerpts-- I'd say none more evident than the one highlighted in red..
peace!

• Behold! Allah said: "O 'Isa! I will take thee and raise thee to myself and clear thee (of the falsehood) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith, to the Day of Resurrection: then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. 3.55
  
  
  
• The similitude of 'Isa before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him "Be": and he was. 3.59
  
• That they said (in boast), "We killed Al-Masih 'Isa the son of Maryam, 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. 4.157
  
• O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Al-Masih 'Isa the son of Maryam was (no more than) A Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. 4.157
  
  
• Then will Allah say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it, and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs, and the Unbelievers among them said: `This is nothing but evident magic.' 5.110
  
• Said 'Isa the son of Maryam: "O Allah our Lord! send us from heaven a Table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a Sign from Thee; and provide for our sustenance, for Thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)." 5.114
  
• And behold! Allah will say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. 5.116
  
  
  
• Such (was) 'Isa the son of Maryam: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19.34

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grenville.. the Quran does deny the crucifiction of Jesus, and especially denies his Divinity.. I have quoted for your viewing some excerpts-- I'd say none more evident than the one highlighted in red..
peace!

I noticed only one of those verses said anything about the crucifixion. Is there any more than this verse with regards to Jesus' crucifixion or lack thereof in the Qur'an?

That they said (in boast), "We killed Al-Masih 'Isa the son of Maryam, 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. 4.157

[جوري]

all can be found here
http://quran.al-islam.com/arb/

this is from the Quran
you may also search all that pertains to him in the hadith here
The query [jesus] generated the following matches:
http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch

Complete Sahih Bukhari

001.003.097 001.008.345 003.034.425 003.043.656 004.054.429 004.054.462 004.054.506 004.055.568 004.055.607 004.055.608 004.055.640 004.055.644 004.055.645 004.055.647 004.055.648 004.055.649 004.055.650 004.055.651 004.055.652 004.055.653 004.055.655 004.055.656 004.055.657 004.055.658 005.058.227 005.058.284 006.060.003 006.060.105 006.060.149 006.060.150 006.060.236 006.060.238 006.060.239 006.060.264 007.063.209 008.076.533 008.076.570 008.082.817 009.093.507 009.093.532v 009.093.601

Complete Sahih Muslim

001.0293 001.0313 001.0314 001.0316 001.0317 001.0321 001.0322 001.0325 001.0328 001.0352 001.0373 001.0377 001.0378 001.0380 001.0397 004.0918 007.2877 025.5326 030.5834 030.5835 030.5836 030.5840 033.6429 041.6924 041.6931 041.6932 041.6933 041.6934 041.7015 041.7023

Partial Sunan Abu Dawud

037.4310 037.4322

peace!

[جوري]

I learned a few hadiths about Jesus (p) myself just browsing through these.. that he was

Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair.

in fact I didn't know that, sobhan Allah.. we learn something new every day! Maybe I shouldn't have wished for death this morning :lol:?

[back_to_faith]

Hi Back to Faith:


The Qur’an does not deny that the crucifixion occurred, nor does it deny that Jesus was crucified. It says that the Jews did not crucify Him. Further, if Mohammed truly believed that Jesus was not crucified, then given the significance of such a claim, it would certainly have been supported elsewhere in the Qur’an as his other contentious claims have been. However, it does not appear to be.

There is no doubt that the verse can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was not crucified. However, only if the assumption that He was not crucified is supported elsewhere in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

There we go again !!!


First:

we have 2 Quranic verse one shows that Jesus never been crucified ,and Allah ended his course of life on earth peacefully.
[004:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,

another affirms that Jews failed to hurt Jesus by any mean.



[005:110] (That day) Allah will say, “Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Recall the favors I bestowed upon you and your mother. I aided you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gibrael), and you spoke to mankind as an infant, and also as an adult. I taught you the art of writing, and the insight; and the Torah and the Gospel. You shaped clay into the likeness of a bird, and as you breathed into it, by My leave it turned into a real bird. You restored the sight of the born blind, and you cured lepers by My leave. You brought the dead back to life by My leave. (Remember also that) I restrained the children of Israel and kept them from (hurting) you. (Although) you brought them the clear incontrovertible proofs, yet the disbelievers among them (dismissed all the proofs and) said, “This is nothing but evident magic!”


If God kept The Jews from hurting Jews,and let the Romans crucify him,what kind of favor he will remind Jesus of?!!!


second:

Have you ever heard of the saying: (The burden of proof lies on him who alledges)?

you alledged a Roman crucifiction to the Quranic Jesus,so it would be logical for you to support that with a Quranic verse ,tells that.
and I by no mean,is obligged to provide you the opposite..

the burden of proof is on your shoulder ,my friend,cause you who assert.

peace

[Walter]

Hi Back to Faith:

Very good. You have provided one verse to support the claim that Jesus was not crucified. Now let us examine this verse in its context.

5:109-110 - One day will Allah gather the messengers together, and ask: "What was the response ye received (from men to your teaching)?" They will say: "We have no knowledge: it is Thou Who knowest in full all that is hidden." Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'

Now the instructive part of this verse relevant to our discussion is: “And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'”

When did God restrain the Children of Israel? “I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs”

What were the clear signs? “and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave.”

What was the Jews’ response? “and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'”

Therefore, the context for this verse is when Jesus was healing others during His ministry, not when he was being crucified. Therefore this verse does not support the claim that Jesus was not crucified.

You asked me to provide proof that Jesus was crucified. Well here it is.

1. The Jewish historian Josephus stated in AD 93 that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
2. The Roman historian Tacitus stated in AD 116 that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
3. The Gospels state that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
4. The Qur’an does not state that Jesus was not crucified. But it does say that Muslims are to believe the Books that came before, which do state that Jesus was crucified.

Since 4:157 does not state that Jesus was not crucified, only that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, then it can be implied that Jesus was crucified only if there were corroborating verses from the Qur’an. We have found none.

Now, to accept that Jesus was crucified is in harmony with the rest of the Qur’an, with recorded history, and with the Books that came before. If you wish to make the assumption that Jesus was not crucified, then it is you my friend (and I mean that sincerely) that must provide some proof, since there is no support for this assertion in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Purest Ambrosia:

Thank you for the additional information. However, I would like to limit the evidence to what is stated in the Qur’an. Regarding Jesus’ crucifixion, please see my response to Back to Faith above.

Jesus’ divinity and the trinity are additional contentious issues that can easily be resolved. However, it requires a willingness to look at another perspective. It is possible that the Bible and the Qur’an are both correct, just like with this contentious issue of Jesus’ crucifixion. Unfortunately for 1,300 years, our religious leaders have kept us apart with their opinions.

History has shown us that for thousands of years, people have believed opinions that were later found to be incorrect. If history has taught us anything, it is that we must not be afraid to re-examine the evidence, for in so doing, we can either reinforce our beliefs, or we can modify them so that they are more accurate and relevant.

When I turned 40 years old, I decided that from henceforth, I had to be convinced about everything that I believed and that I would always be honest with my intellect when doing so. I have decided that if the colour looks blue to me, then I would not simply agree to call it red just because an authority, a scholar, said that it was red. Let the scholar convince me that it is red without me having to be dishonest with myself.

When I read the Qur’an, I did not see much conflict with Christianity, and I realised that Muslims who followed the Qur’an had to be my brothers and sisters. It was clear from my reading of the Qur’an and knowledge of the Books that came before that Jesus was crucified and was raised by God. Nothing in the Qur’an disputed this.

I look forward to your comments on my response to Back to Faith.

Best regards,
Grenville

[- Qatada -]

Hi Grenville.


I've explained the keypoints here;

It's not on my part to find another interpretation, since you're contradicting all the classical scholars of our religion, and i'm sure that none of them have ever come up with the conclusion that you've stated.


Why do i say this? Because if someone is to say that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) died - then they are saying that a person can return back to this world when this is not the case in Islam. Once someone dies/tastes death, they move on to the Barzakh [the life in between this life and the life of the hereafter] - so if Jesus son of Mary was to die, he wouldn't be able to return back to this world, and therefore he wouldn't be the Christ/Messiah. Since it's only the Christ/Messiah who will fight and defeat the Anti-Christ.

So if you disagree, that's your choice. However, please do not claim that the Qur'an claims something when there is no proof for that at all from our Islamic sources. Thankyou.




Regards.

[back_to_faith]

You asked me to provide proof that Jesus was crucified. Well here it is.

1. The Jewish historian Josephus stated in AD 93 that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
2. The Roman historian Tacitus stated in AD 116 that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
3. The Gospels state that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

Do you remember my Question?

you alledged a Roman crucifiction to the Quranic Jesus,so it would be logical for you to support that with a Quranic verse ...

to be continued

[back_to_faith]

Hi Back to Faith:

Very good. You have provided one verse to support the claim that Jesus was not crucified. Now let us examine this verse in its context.

5:109-110 - One day will Allah gather the messengers together, and ask: "What was the response ye received (from men to your teaching)?" They will say: "We have no knowledge: it is Thou Who knowest in full all that is hidden." Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'

Now the instructive part of this verse relevant to our discussion

No my friend ,the part of this verse is so relevant to our discussion,

what was the Jesus's story lines in the verse?

1-He was strengthened with the holy spirit from the very beginning which enabled him to,1-speak in childhood,learn the book and the wisdom,to berform miracles.

2-the Jews after he showed them the clear Signs, the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.

3- They planned to kill him him..

what you suggested , according to your explanation to the verse:


1-Jesus showed the Jews the miracle of ,healing those who born blind, and the lepers, raising the deads ...all that in one occasion without a time that seperate them all,and they tried to Hurt him in the same day !!!!


How pathetic !!!

any simple reading to the text would show the time gaps between such things.!!

peace

[back_to_faith]

Since 4:157 does not state that Jesus was not crucified, only that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, then it can be implied that Jesus was crucified only if there were corroborating verses from the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

correction:

Since 4:157 does state that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews, , then it can be implied that Jesus wasn't crucified by anyone else as long as we have no Quranic verse for such claim.


and again What kind of a favor Allah will remind his beloved prophet of,
If he saved him from the Jews and let him to the Romans to kill him ?????!!!!!

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

You noted two things.

1. That my interpretation is not consistent with that of Islamic classical scholars.
2. That if Jesus was crucified, then He could not return to judge the works as the Messiah.

I will deal with both of your concerns.

1. Classical Scholars’ Infallibility?

As I explained to Purest Ambrosia, history has taught us that men are fallible, and that evidence can be misinterpreted resulting in persons being misguided for thousands of years. I refuse to be one of those misguided persons. If the colour looks blue to me, then I refuse to call it red just because someone tells me that it is red. The scholar should be able to explain to me his/her interpretation of the evidence. So far, I am not convinced.

Qatada, we have both shared our opinions as we examined the interpretation of one of the most contentious verses in the Qur’an. However, while I have left the comfort of my opinion and ventured over to your side to look at the verse from your perspective in order to investigate its merit, you are not willing to reciprocate. You noted that you preferred to simply accept the interpretation of Islamic scholars rather than examine the verse for yourself. I hope that you will reconsider.

2. Islamic Tradition’s Infallibility?

Is the evidence for this belief in the Qur’an, or is this an Islamic tradition? If the evidence is from the Qur’an, then please provide it.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Back to Faith:

I will deal with each of your concerns.

1. Verse 5:110

I stated the following:

Therefore, the context for this verse is when Jesus was healing others during His ministry, not when he was being crucified. Therefore this verse does not support the claim that Jesus was not crucified.

You misinterpreted this to mean:

Jesus showed the Jews the miracle of ,healing those who born blind, and the lepers, raising the deads ...all that in one occasion without a time that seperate them all, and they tried to Hurt him in the same day !!!!

Please note that I gave no other time reference except to state that the miracles occurred “during His ministry”, which was about 3 years duration. I never stated or implied that they occurred over 1 day. Now there is ample evidence from the Gospels where every time that Jesus did a miracle that the Jewish leaders did not approve, they tried to kill Him. They actually tried to throw Him off of a cliff, but the scriptures note that He walked right through them. Therefore this verse is not relevant to the assertion that Jesus was not crucified.

2. Verse 4:157

You noted:

and again What kind of a favor Allah will remind his beloved prophet of, If he saved him from the Jews and let him to the Romans to kill him ?????!!!!!

Your error here is that you are linking verse 4:157 to verse 5:110 when they are speaking of different events. Verse 4:157 addresses Jesus’ crucifixion at the end of His earthly ministry, while verse 5:110 addresses Jesus’ miracles during His earthly ministry.

3. You queried:

Do you remember my Question? you alledged a Roman crucifiction to the Quranic Jesus,so it would be logical for you to support that with a Quranic verse ...

This is clearly a misunderstanding. You seem to have entered the debate at the end. During the debate, we were looking for Biblical evidence that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. This was settled. When I stated that Jesus was crucified, not by the Jews as the Qur’an rightly states, but by the Romans, I should have added “as the Bible states “, for the benefit of persons who may have entered the debate without reading the previous posts.

Regards,
Grenville