Christianity or Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by Phil12123

Excellent post, Doug. Only GOD has not sinned. That is another proof of Christ's Deity, because ONLY Jesus of all men who walked this earth did NOT SIN.

If you're explaining your beliefs that is fine, but if you are advancing such statements as a logical argument they don't hold because I don't accept the Bible as an authority, hence the fallacy petitio principii.

Secondly, there are some very clear verses in the NT itself which imply that Jesus erred or at least was not as sinless as he was made out to be by Christian sources.

Jesus says: "and whoever shall say, 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matthew 5:22)
And yet Jesus also says: You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:17)

The first states that if someone says "you fool" to someone else, then they are guilty of hell, and in the second verse Jesus does it himself!

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

If Jesus were a prophet and God told Him to call someone a fool, that would be divine inspiration. Or maybe Jesus is God incarnate as the Bible claims, and as God, He pretty much knows a fool when He sees one.

I'm afraid you haven't addressed the problem. The problem is not with simply calling someone a fool, but with saying that whoever calls someone a fool is guilty enough for hell and calling someone a fool.

Can you see any similarities between the claims of the Mormons and the Muslims concerning Christianity?

I'm afraid not. Islamic theology has much more in common with Judaism than Mormonism. Jews and Muslims percieve Trinitarians as the ones who have broken awan from the simple and straightforward doctrines of the scriptures concerning monotheism and salvation. Plus, Mormonism does not see itself as a continuation of Islam.

Either one of the angels wasn't Gabriel, angels are subject to "minor lapses in angelic judgement", or one of the records is wrong.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You should know quite well the Muslim beliefs concerning scriptural alteration.

Islam has minimized the sinfulness of sin by deeming it "minor lapses in human judgement" or "mistakes".

No it hasn't! I said that Prophets were protected from all sins barring the minor lapses in human judgement. I am sure you can appreciate the significant difference between the two statements.

Christ came to die for the sins of the World. I can't explain why His death takes away sin any more than you can explain why it doesn't.

I don't feel the need to. We need only examine the logical coherence of the doctrine, not provide explanations for it.

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"?

What does it mean to be 'saved' ? And is it promised to the one who persists in sin though he 'confesses with his mouth' and 'believes in his heart' that an immortal God raised himself from the dead?

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by Phil12123

Why would it be "rejected as false by Muslims" that David committed adultery with Bath-sheba

Because that is an enormous sin, not some trivial error. The Prophets are the best of human beings as they are the role models, and they are protected against such sins, hence Muslims view this as a great slander. Dawud occupies a very lofty status with God as do all Prophets.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Is the Muslim claim that the Bible is false on the point about David's adultery based on any historical evidence, or supposed textual corruption, or solely on the belief in the sinlessness of all the prophets?

The Muslim claim is based on the Muslim beliefs.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

Actually I did address the problem. I believe the Bible claims Jesus is Lord, and therefore He has the right to judge mankind, and deem any behavior foolish He sees fit.

But he says: "and WHOEVER shall say, 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matthew 5:22)
He did not exempt himself from this unconditional declaration. He said that it is a sin to call others fools but he did so himself. For you to claim he is sinless is meaningless then because you believe that any sin he commits is not a sin for him since he is Jesus and Jesus is God.
And Jesus may be fully God according to Christians but he is also fully man.

Mormonism and Islam both see their prophets and books as God's final revelation through a final prophet to correct scriptural tampering and restore true belief. This does not in any way imply their books or beliefs are the same.

Obviously. For you to assess the validity of Islam by comparing it to a religion that has absolutely nothing in common except finality is manifestly fallacious. You need to investigate the logical coherence of the doctrines themselves.

You're right, I know them well. I was merely saying that Gabriel couldn't have given conflicting revelations, so one must have been wrong. We both know which one it was. It just isn't the same one.

The most important thing of course is the reasoning behind the judgement.

Actually I can't.

You don't see your error in completely omitting mention of 'Prophets' in your statement? Did I minimize sinfulness of sins or did I say that Prophets don't commit sins?
The actual problem here is that you are operating with the Christian definition of sin which includes everything from the impolite snort to the mass murder of children. In order to have a discussion we need to agree on terminology, right? If you want to say that sin includes everything, so be it but I can't expound my beliefs unless you come up with adequate terminology I can use to differentiate between major sins and minor mistakes. It is like asking someone to explain stellar systems but you don't allow them to differentiate between stars and planets and instead insist that they use the term 'planetoid' for both. Then you blame them for saying that humans can detect by radiation some planetoids and not others.

Do you have specific verses in the Quran that address the instances I cited above concerning the sins the Bible attributed to Moses, Solomon, and David by which Muslims are premitted to discount the Biblical claim?

No, the Qur'an does not address these specific allegations against the Prophets. Muslims reject them due to the Islamic doctrine on the infallibility of Prophets.

I find much Islamic doctrine to be logically incoherant just as you find much Christian doctrine to be logically incoherant.

If it is logically incoherent it should not be a subjective issue. Why not demonstrate the logical contradiction?

I don't know you personally, but I do know by your own statement that all humans sin, therefore you sin. In fact, I would venture to guess that the sins you commit are repeated sins for which you have asked forgivness. Therefore the answer to the question is yes. In fact, that is the very reason Christ came to earth.

You have specified asking forgiveness here. Who must ask forgiveness and why? Again, what does it mean to be saved? Has God died for everyone's sins or only for the sins of those who believe he died for their sins? What is the significance of the point in time when God chose to die for the sins f orHis creation? Will one who indulged in crimes against humanity all his life without repenting be admitted into paradise if he believed God died for His sins?

Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Phil12123

I don't think you answered the question.

He asked me if the Muslim claim was based on historical evidence or Muslim beliefs. I answered the latter.

Let me rephrase it --- WHY do Muslims reject as false the point about David's adultery?

Because it conflicts with our beliefs on the infallibility of Prophets, as I said in the last post. If you want more than that answer you need to specify what you wnat.

If you don't know the origin of Muslim beliefs about David, just say so.

Au contraire, I am reasonably confident in my knowledge of Islamic beliefs on the Prophets. The origin of the beliefs are from God, He revealed them. If that's not what you meant you'll need to elucidate.

Peace.

Christianity Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:38 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran:

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen.


Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma’idah 5:116-117)


I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran.


Before leaving the subject of Christianity, I should mention one small point of observation. If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying.
B]
The Gospels [/B]

If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author’s autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:


"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)." Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He’s and the Him’s of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God.


It is worth noting, and well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present four "gospels" of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, and not by Jesus. Constantine’s mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant and criminal who murdered his son, his wife and thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father." Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus’ disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. If these writings were not more authentic than the four present gospels, they were of equal authenticity. Some of them are still available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Quran. The Gospel of Barnabas, until now, is the only eyewitness account of the life and mission of Jesus. Even today, the whole of the Protestant word, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other sects and denominations condemn the Roman Catholic version of the Bible because it contains seven "extra" books. The Protestant have bravely expunged seven whole books from their word of God. A few of the outcasts are the Books of Judith, Tobnias, Baruch and Esther.


Concerning Jesus’ teachings of the Gospel (Injeel), the Gospel writers frequently mentioned Jesus preaching the Gospel: Matthew 9:35, Mark 8:35, and Luke 20:1. The word "gospel" is recurrently used in the Bible. However, in the New Testament Greek edition the word Evangeline is used in place of the word gospel, which is translated to mean good news. My question was: what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus, and only of the 27 books are known to be attributed as the Gospel of Jesus. The remaining 23 were supposedly written by Paul. Muslims do believe that Jesus was given God’s "Good News." However, they do not recognized the present four Gospels as the utterances of Jesus.


The earliest Gospel is that of Mark’s which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark’s and


Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4?


Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.


John’s Gospel is from a different source, and was written in about 100 AD. He (John) should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE long before this gospel was written. It should be accepted as a reliable account of the life of Jesus, and whether it should be included in the scriptures. Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark."


The permission to call "According to" writings the Gospel was not given by Jesus nor by any other divine guidance. These writings; Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, were never originally to be the Gospel. Therefore, Mark 1:1 can not be a true statement that his writing is the gospel of Jesus.


It should be mentioned that Muslims must believe in all Divine scriptures in their original form, their Prophets and making no distinction between them: The Suhuf (Abraham); Torah (Moses); Psalms (David); Gospel - or the Injeel (Jesus); and the Quran (Muhammad). It is clearly stated in the Quran 3:3 that Allah sent down the Torah and the Gospel. However, none of these scriptures remains in its original form now, except the Quran, which was sent for all mankind everywhere and for all times.


In addition to other reasons why the Quran was sent to mankind, as mentioned in 18:4-5 it was sent to warn the Christians of a terrible punishment from God if they cease not in saying:


"Allah has begotten a son."


Muslims sincerely believe that everything Jesus (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) preached was from God; the Gospel (Injeel): The "good news" and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. There is no place mentioned in the present four Gospels that Jesus wrote a single word of his Gospel, nor is it mentioned that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. What passes off, as the "Gospels" today are the works of third party human hands. The Quran 2:79 says:


"And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and they say: "This is from Allah (God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!"


Jesus As the Son of God


Is Jesus the Son of God? Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.


The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.


Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" * Nourisher and Sustainer * of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.


In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David: "...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."


Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says: "...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."


Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is


Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?


I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten, Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Now let’s read Luke 10:25-28: And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live.


These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says; "And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? * No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."


There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone.


In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission. In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples: "But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing."


Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God’s nature. The Qur’an 19:35 says: "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam 19:35)

The Crucifixion

A very significant event in the Christian doctrine is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Before talking about the many controversies surrounding the


Crucifixion, it should be mentioned that it was a gospel of Paul’s which professed the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (II Timothy 2:8): "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel."


In addition, the gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 was already removed from the text by gospel writers in the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version and then, for some reasons, restored in the 1971 edition. In many Bibles, if not removed, it is printed in small print or between two brackets and with commentary (See the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).


The traditional biblical account of Jesus’ Crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960’s by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus’ Crucifixion. Did any one of the disciples or the writers of the Gospel see the Crucifixion or the Resurrection? No! In Mark 14:50, it says the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. Even Peter forsook Jesus after the cock crowed three times as Jesus foretold: (Matthew 26:75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.


The most likely persons whom may have witnessed this moment in Jesus’ life were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee’s children and other women (Matthew 27:55-56). However, there is no statement or account in the Gospels from those women as to what they saw or heard.


The disciple(s) found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty, and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged Crucifixion. Nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. Jesus himself stated that he did not die on the cross in Luke 24:36-41, as explained in the following paragraphs.


Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, which was empty. She saw somebody standing who looked like a gardener. She recognized him after a conversation to be Jesus and wanted to touch him. Jesus said (John 20:17): "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."


Now read Luke 24:36-41: "And as they (disciples) thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? And why so thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me end see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of boiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."


Does a spiritual or dead body have a need to eat food? Jesus eating of food was to prove to the disciples that he was not a spirit, but rather, he was still alive and not dead.


Jesus being alive and not dead is further supported in his own prophecy (Matthew 12:40): "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


Did Jesus fulfill this miracle? Christians would say "yes," because Jesus died and rose three days later according to Luke 24:36 and Matthew 20:19, to name a few verses. However, in line with the miracle of Jonah and according to the Bible, Jesus only spent one day and two nights in the sepulchre, and not three days and three nights as he prophesied.


Jesus was put in the sepulchre just before sunset on Friday (Good Friday) and was found missing before sunrise on Sunday (Easter). If we were to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the time frame a bit, one may say that Jesus spent three days in the earth, but there is no way and I repeat, no way, that Jesus spent three nights in the earth. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty.


Consequently, there are some inconsistencies as to whether Jesus fulfilled his own prophecy. Whether he was actually crucified, or if the day (Good Friday) of his alleged Crucifixion is wrong. Another significant point to mention is that Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. The Christians says, Jesus was dead in the belly of the earth/tomb, and this contradicts Jesus’ own prophecy. Jesus said (Luke 11:30): "As Jonah was...so shall the Son of man be."


If Jonah was alive, so was Jesus.


One critical event that took place before the alleged Crucifixion was the prayer of Jesus to God for help. Luke 22:42: "Saying Father if thou be willing, remove this cup (of death) from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done."


Jesus’ prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God according to Luke 22:43 and Hebrews 5:7. Therefore, if all of Jesus’ prayer were accepted by God, including not to die on the cross, how could he have died on the cross?


In Matthew 27:46, it states that while Jesus was on the cross, he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).


If Jesus said these words, it represents a blatant declaration of disbelief according to all theological authorities. This is a great insult as such words could only come from an unbeliever in God. Further, it is incredible that such words should come from a Prophet of God, because God never breaks His promise and His Prophets never complained against His promise, especially when the Prophet’s mission is understood. It could be said that whoever relates that this statement was said by a Prophet (Jesus), is a disbeliever.


Muslims believe, as the Qur’an states, Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but Allah saved him from their plot. Qur’an 4:157: "That they (Jews) said boasting, "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they (Jews) killed him not, nor crucified him..." (An Nisa 4:157)

Sorry if this is too long.

edit..