Jesus' Crucifixion

[dougmusr]

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

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

 

[جوري]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

 

[Joe98]

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

I interpret that as;


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


You interpret that as;

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

:giggling:

 

[dougmusr]

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

 

[dougmusr]

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

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

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

 

[dougmusr]

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

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

 

[Joe98]

Doug is here!

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

 

[dougmusr]

Doug is here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dougmusr]

Noah got drunk and had sexual relations with his daughters.

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

".

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

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

.

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

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

For that I will paraphrase you:

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

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

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

 

[doodlebug]

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


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

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


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

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

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

 

[- Qatada -]

Hi doodlebug.


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


In Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

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


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

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


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


Allaah Almighty knows best.


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



Peace.

 

[*Hana*]

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Hana

 

[*Hana*]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Hana

 

[*Hana*]

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

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

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

Peace Doodlebug:

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

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

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

Peace to you,
Hana

 

[*Hana*]

I wonder how eskimos would interpret this verse?

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

This means the message

1 - did not come from God or;

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

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

Peace,
Hana