Why does Islam still reject the historical Jesus?

[Scimitar]

So it is a good question then, do you actively reject the crucifiction, or are you just not convinced or concerned with it (which would be my own position)? Is it a matter of importance to Islam? If so, why? Does Jesus being crucified have any basis on Islamic faith or claims? I can see how the claimed resurrection would, but crucifiction?

I studied Christianity in my twenties - I went kind of deep into it back then. One of the things I naturally struggled with was the idea of the crucifxion - as a born and raised Muslim, I had a bias which would not allow me to accept a non Islamic view of history... however, I understood that I had a bias and that this would possibly stop me from learning the Christian POV so I had to humour my own "self" and investigate the crucifixion... what I turned up - amazed me.

You see, LetUsReason is asking us "why do Muslims reject the historical Jesus".... I ask, why did the early Christians? Why did the Romans? and especially the Jews?

Let me explain. When Pontius Pilates, the Roman general in charge of Jerusalem, presented Jesus the son of Mary and a notorious criminal names Barabbas to the Jews - he asked them "which of these two criminals shall I set free?" -the Jews chose Barabbas to be set free, and so - apparently, Jesus - was to be crucified - that's the story, right?

Well, if that's the case - why is there no mention of the event in the annals of the Roman general Pontius Pilates - the Romans were known to be meticulous record keepers of absolutely anything and everything - why was this incident not recorded? If any incident deserves to be recorded - then the freeing of barabbas and condemnation of Jesus would have been a prime reason for recording it - where is the historical Jesus here? NOWHERE...

...further... let me humour this anyway and let's assume this event actually did happen... so what's next? right?

let's investigate the name "Barabbas"... in Hebrew, the word Bar - means "Son of" and the word "Abbas" means "father".... so the name Barabbas, means son of the father.

But it gets better - Barabbas was his last name - his first name was "Yehshua" - so in full it would be "Yehshua, Son of the Father"....

...now imagine how it went down.

"Royal Jewry, Ladies and GentleJews (who am In kidding, this was a lynch mob) - In the Blue corner, Jesus the son of God... and in the red corner - Jesus the Son of the Father"....

They claimed they crucified Jesus - but which one really? they themselves don't know it. And were too embarrassed to actually record it as an historical event... why didn't the Jews record it? I mean forget the Romans not recording it - the Jews would have an even better reason to record the crucifixion - but they didn't... all they did was taunt and tease and persecute the early Christians - the ***** of babylon is exactly that, an unholy alliance between monotheism and paganism - The Jewry and Rome back in the day.

In the Quran, surah An Nisaa (the women) verse 157:

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". Pickthall translation

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. - sahih int translation

This is why I love Islam, it is the only thing in this world which has prepared me to find truths... and I am not speaking from bias - I am speaking from the critical approach I have taken towards it.

Scimi

EDIT: on that note - the whole premise of LetUsReason collapses right here - this thread can now be closed and stickied in the appropriate section for future reference by members here.

 

[greenhill]

I'd still like to know why to my question above #17 (before closing)

Peace :shade:

 

[Scimitar]

Why do you believe this is so?

Peace :shade:

He's just regurgitating what he has heard - and has absolutely nothing substantial to add except what he already has brother Greenhill. This is the problem with people who have opinions but no way to substantiate them - they just wax lyrical and think people are just as ignorant as they are and so will accept what they have accepted.

shame really.

inflexible minds cannot test their own logic and end up highly illogical.

Scimi

 

[letusreason]

He's just regurgitating what he has heard - and has absolutely nothing substantial to add except what he already has brother Greenhill. This is the problem with people who have opinions but no way to substantiate them - they just wax lyrical and think people are just as ignorant as they are and so will accept what they have accepted.

shame really.

inflexible minds cannot test their own logic and end up highly illogical.

Scimi

No it's called listening!

 

[letusreason]

Why do you believe this is so?

Peace :shade:

Because without the NT there would be no RCC without whom there would be little to no knowledge about Isa/Jesus! There would be no recording of Judas. Also can i say I have a very hard time believing that mohammed was illiterate! I think people just made it up to to give legitimacy to the story!

 

[YusufNoor]

Because without the NT there would be no RCC without whom there would be little to no knowledge about Isa/Jesus! There would be no recording of Judas. Also can i say I have a very hard time believing that mohammed was illiterate! I think people just made it up to to give legitimacy to the story!

i assume that by RCC, you mean the Roman Catholic Church? you are aware that such an entity did not exist before the 5th century, right? and that there are other versions of Christianity, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, the Nestorian churches in Asia and Coptic churches in Egypt, all of which predate the RCC?

why do you think, despite vast historical evidence, that the Prophet wasn't illiterate?

 

[letusreason]

i assume that by RCC, you mean the Roman Catholic Church? you are aware that such an entity did not exist before the 5th century, right? and that there are other versions of Christianity, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, the Nestorian churches in Asia and Coptic churches in Egypt, all of which predate the RCC?

why do you think, despite vast historical evidence, that the Prophet wasn't illiterate?

The evidence is no better than what you call bad evidence on the other side of the fence.

 

[Muslim Woman]

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God."
(Qur'an 5:73)




"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected."
(Qur'an 17:39)



O People of the Book, do not commit excesses in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'-- stop [this], that is better for you-- God is only ONE God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.} [4;171]