Jesus' Crucifixion
- Thread starter doodlebug
- Start date
- Replies 118
- Views 17K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
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.
um....Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were 4 of the 12......:rollseyes
.....John was at Mary's side when Jesus died on the cross. He also is one of the 4 that wrote about it. I don't know where you are getting your information but it's confusing the heck out of me. lol
That is so untrue....I am without words at this point. John was the famous John the Baptist. Any scholar worth his/her weight in gold will tell you this!!!
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
John the baptist Aka prophet (yahya) was beheaded as a wedding gift for the Jewess Salome who married her uncle... John was against the incestual relationship ... he didn't write the bible... and he is different from the apostle John you speak of
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
look what I found....
Did John the Baptist die after Jesus?
A work in progress by
Latest update: 20 October 2005
PTET weblog | e-mail PTET
Introduction
This page looks at an apparent anomaly between Biblical account of the life of Jesus and the Jewish History of Josephus. In short, Josephus seems to date the death of John the Baptist to 36CE, the last year of Pilate's tenure in Judaea, and years after the "accepted" death of Jesus Christ.
However, a closer look at the text reveals that Josephus's use of dates can be quite unreliable - and therefore we cannot be sure of when his reference to John the Baptists death occurred.
(I am grateful to Tektonics for providing useful information on this matter in their article Josephus vs. Mark on Herod vs. John. The opinions in this article are, of course, mine and not theirs).
Dating John the Baptist from the Bible
The Gospel according to Luke is unusually specific about the date of John the Baptist's teaching:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]
Historical records are available for all of the rulers mentioned:
Tiberius Caesar was joint ruler of Rome from 12 CE, and came into power in his own right in 14 CE. Therefore the fifteen year of his reign must have been between 26-29 CE.
Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea between 26-36 CE.
Herod Anitpas and his brother Philip ruled until their deaths in 39 CE and 34 CE respectively.
Annas was high-priest between 6-15 CE, and was apparently still influential during the tenure of his son-in-law Caiaphas in 18-37 CE.
According to Luke, therefore, John The Baptist's ministry must have began around 26-29 CE. Further, Luke 3:23 states that Jesus Christ was about thirty years old at this time.
It is commonly calculated that Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 CE or (more likely) 3 April 33 CE. (Sir Isaac Newton preferred a date of 23 April 34 CE).
Dating John the Baptist's death from Josephus
Josephus mentions John The Baptist in his Antiquities at 18.5.2 116-119.
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." [18.5.2 116-119]
In his web page John the Baptist and Josephus G. J. Goldberg writes:
"A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him..."
"...it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE..."
"According to Josephus, John the Baptist is arrested around this time and killed shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, this is after the traditional dating of Jesus death, but traditional also says that Jesus began his ministry around the time John died."
Goldberg considers explanations for this 36 CE dating by the scholar Christiane Saulnier, but concludes:
"Considering the arguments as a whole, Saulnier does propose a possible way in which Josephus' chronology can be reconciled with the gospels'. For believers in the basic accuracy of the gospels, that is enough. But if one regards the gospels' dating as suspect and solely works from Josephus' text, then Saulnier's discussion pushes the date back some but does not produce any firm evidence identifying the date... before the early 30's CE. The reader can choose between these alternatives according to his or her own predisposition. "
The 36 CE date is of interest not only because it is two or three years later than the accepted date for Christ's death; but also because Pontius Pilate's term as governor of Judaea ended in that year.
This problem with dating has long been recognised by Christian writers. The 1902 Catholic Encyclopedia has this explanation for the discrepancy:
"...it should be remembered that [Josephus]... is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention."
This argument is expanded by the Fundamentalist apologetics website Tektonics:
"...It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7)."
This does indeed seem to throw the datings apparently given by Josephus into question.
Conclusion
It seems that either Josephus is wrong, or the Bible (or both!). The very specific dating given in Luke 3:1-3 is not repeated in the other Gospels, and the authorship of Luke is uncertain.
Readers may also be interested to note that the early Christian writer St. Irenaeus (c. 125-191 CE) wrote that apostlistic tradition taught that Jesus was around fifty when he died - and that he preached for many more than the three years commonly attributed. If trus, this would imply that Jesus was either born well before 1 BCE, or that he died well after the time of Pilate.
my conclusion:
many problems with dates many problems with the stories told er written....
Did John the Baptist die after Jesus?
A work in progress by
Latest update: 20 October 2005
PTET weblog | e-mail PTET
Introduction
This page looks at an apparent anomaly between Biblical account of the life of Jesus and the Jewish History of Josephus. In short, Josephus seems to date the death of John the Baptist to 36CE, the last year of Pilate's tenure in Judaea, and years after the "accepted" death of Jesus Christ.
However, a closer look at the text reveals that Josephus's use of dates can be quite unreliable - and therefore we cannot be sure of when his reference to John the Baptists death occurred.
(I am grateful to Tektonics for providing useful information on this matter in their article Josephus vs. Mark on Herod vs. John. The opinions in this article are, of course, mine and not theirs).
Dating John the Baptist from the Bible
The Gospel according to Luke is unusually specific about the date of John the Baptist's teaching:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]
Historical records are available for all of the rulers mentioned:
Tiberius Caesar was joint ruler of Rome from 12 CE, and came into power in his own right in 14 CE. Therefore the fifteen year of his reign must have been between 26-29 CE.
Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea between 26-36 CE.
Herod Anitpas and his brother Philip ruled until their deaths in 39 CE and 34 CE respectively.
Annas was high-priest between 6-15 CE, and was apparently still influential during the tenure of his son-in-law Caiaphas in 18-37 CE.
According to Luke, therefore, John The Baptist's ministry must have began around 26-29 CE. Further, Luke 3:23 states that Jesus Christ was about thirty years old at this time.
It is commonly calculated that Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 CE or (more likely) 3 April 33 CE. (Sir Isaac Newton preferred a date of 23 April 34 CE).
Dating John the Baptist's death from Josephus
Josephus mentions John The Baptist in his Antiquities at 18.5.2 116-119.
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." [18.5.2 116-119]
In his web page John the Baptist and Josephus G. J. Goldberg writes:
"A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him..."
"...it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE..."
"According to Josephus, John the Baptist is arrested around this time and killed shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, this is after the traditional dating of Jesus death, but traditional also says that Jesus began his ministry around the time John died."
Goldberg considers explanations for this 36 CE dating by the scholar Christiane Saulnier, but concludes:
"Considering the arguments as a whole, Saulnier does propose a possible way in which Josephus' chronology can be reconciled with the gospels'. For believers in the basic accuracy of the gospels, that is enough. But if one regards the gospels' dating as suspect and solely works from Josephus' text, then Saulnier's discussion pushes the date back some but does not produce any firm evidence identifying the date... before the early 30's CE. The reader can choose between these alternatives according to his or her own predisposition. "
The 36 CE date is of interest not only because it is two or three years later than the accepted date for Christ's death; but also because Pontius Pilate's term as governor of Judaea ended in that year.
This problem with dating has long been recognised by Christian writers. The 1902 Catholic Encyclopedia has this explanation for the discrepancy:
"...it should be remembered that [Josephus]... is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention."
This argument is expanded by the Fundamentalist apologetics website Tektonics:
"...It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7)."
This does indeed seem to throw the datings apparently given by Josephus into question.
Conclusion
It seems that either Josephus is wrong, or the Bible (or both!). The very specific dating given in Luke 3:1-3 is not repeated in the other Gospels, and the authorship of Luke is uncertain.
Readers may also be interested to note that the early Christian writer St. Irenaeus (c. 125-191 CE) wrote that apostlistic tradition taught that Jesus was around fifty when he died - and that he preached for many more than the three years commonly attributed. If trus, this would imply that Jesus was either born well before 1 BCE, or that he died well after the time of Pilate.
my conclusion:
many problems with dates many problems with the stories told er written....
glo
IB Legend
- Messages
- 8,472
- Reaction score
- 1,785
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Christianity
You are right, Ambrosia
John the baptist came before Jesus' ministry started, and he was beheaded before Jesus' death.
Doodlebug made a mistake. That can happen. Let's forgive her, shall we?
I don't usually go for cutting and pasting, but it is getting rather late, so I will for now:
I hope this is informative.
Peace.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
This isn't a contest--- we are all here to learn---I hold no grudges I assure you! --- John the Baptise wasn't called "simply john" since jesus spoke aramiac... his name was "yo7na" or "ya7ya" son of zachria had a very unique name....You are right, Ambrosia
John the baptist came before Jesus' ministry started, and he was beheaded before Jesus' death.
Doodlebug made a mistake. That can happen. Let's forgive her, shall we?
Peace.
I left out a comma.
I would say to resurrect means to bring back to life. I would say Lazarus was resurrected, but he did not do it under his own power. Christ said He had the authority to lay His life down, and to take it back up. If He did not come back in human form He was not raised from the dead. His eating was therefore done to show the disciples He was fully alive, not a spirit, angel, or ghost. I find this to be fully consistant behavior.
Entry Word: resurrect
Function: verb
Text: to bring back to life, practice, or activity
Main Entry: res·ur·rect
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from resurrection
1 : to raise from the dead
Mk 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered.' 28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."
I would suppose they believed what everyone in Jerusalem believed, and the fact that they fled proves nothing about their behavior immediately after their flight.
I use the Quran because you believe it is Gods word, just as you use the Bible because you know as a Christian I believe it is God's word and therefore has authority.
A better question is, why would you use the Bible in your proofs when you feel it is in error and have no way of knowing where the errors are since you feel there is no original to compare it against?
*Hana*
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 249
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I left out a comma.
Okie dokie
I would say to resurrect means to bring back to life. I would say Lazarus was resurrected, but he did not do it under his own power. Christ said He had the authority to lay His life down, and to take it back up. If He did not come back in human form He was not raised from the dead. His eating was therefore done to show the disciples He was fully alive, not a spirit, angel, or ghost. I find this to be fully consistant behavior.
Entry Word: resurrect
Function: verb
Text: to bring back to life, practice, or activity
Main Entry: res·ur·rect
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from resurrection
1 : to raise from the dead
Will you please provide the biblical definition as explained by Jesus?
Mk 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered.' 28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."
I would suppose they believed what everyone in Jerusalem believed, and the fact that they fled proves nothing about their behavior immediately after their flight.
Well, for me it proves they did not witness anything and their belief was based on heresay. Their fear tells me they truly believed they were seeing a ghost.
I use the Quran because you believe it is Gods word, just as you use the Bible because you know as a Christian I believe it is God's word and therefore has authority.
A better question is, why would you use the Bible in your proofs when you feel it is in error and have no way of knowing where the errors are since you feel there is no original to compare it against?
Yes I do believe the Qur'an is the word of God, but you don't....so you are quoting something you believe was totally man made to try to defend your statement. However, we are discussing biblical text here and I am providing proofs from your own book. As Muslims we do believe the bible still contains some of the true words of God, and when the errors (regardless of how they got there), are removed, it brings the bible much closer to the revelations God originally sent. There are no original biblical documents, unfortunately. But, the problem is you are quoting from the Qur'an which you don't believe contains any words of God. As a Muslim, I could tell you, "yes, this part of your bible is true because the Qur'an tells me it is." or "this part is false because the Qur'an says so." That would be so easy....but, would you accept it? Of course not. So, for me to quote from the Qur'an is pointless. If, however, I can show you where the bible contradicts itself if should be proof enough that God's word was corrupted by man, either intentionally or unintentionally, as we all know God does not make mistakes.
I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. I'm responding to another post and flipping back and forth. If it's not clear, please let me know and I will try to make it more understandable.
Peace to you,
Hana
*Hana*
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 249
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Peace Doodlebug:
Mark: This Gospel is anonymous, is not dated, and it has no direct information about the historical, social, or political context in which it was written. Because specific information about where this gospel comes from doesn't exist, scholars have had to try to figure out what, if anything, might be said about it with some authority and authenticity.
Everything that has been claimed about its authenticity has been assumed, and interpreted by comparing what we do know about early Christians and the text itself.
The author of Mark does not identify himself, but there are many "Marks" noted throughout the bible and any one of them could have been the author. It is believed the stories told in this book were passed down and retold through many different people. Eventually, someone put it into the form similar to what is seen today.
Matthew: The author of this gospel does not identify himself either, but that the Apostle Matthew wrote it is in doubt because the text was originally in Greek rather than Aramaic, it relies heavily on Mark and doesn't possess the charactoristics commonly used with eyewitness accounts.
However, that being said, there is speculation that a Gospel of Matthew written by the Apostle in Aramaic did exist at one time but has since been lost. It is possible this author, who wrote originally in Greek, used the stories passed down from that gospel to create his own. Perhaps in an attempt to salvage something from that time. Unfortunately, because there is no way to determine who actually wrote this book, there is no way to verify the authenticity of what is written or how accurately it was translated and retold to this author.
Luke: The author of this book describes how he prepared himself to write it. This implies he was not an eyewitness to events but rather got his information from other sources. Luke 1:1-3: 1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
John: This gospel is the most contraversial both in the authorship and textual writings. The writings are vastly different from those of the synoptics and this causes concern for biblical and christian scholars. Traditionally, it had been accepted John was the son of Zebedee and who many believe is the "disciple whom Jesus loved". This would definitely make him an eyewitness, however, this is very unlikely. To begin, nowhere in the gospel is the author said to be named John. Second, this "beloved disciple" is only found in John and seems to be absent from all 3 of the synoptics, and during very crucial times such as "the last supper", "the empty tomb" and "the crucifixion". Isn't it odd the 3 synoptics differ so greatly regarding these very critical events?
The beloved disciple is also often referred to as "the other disciple", so there is evidence in John 21:2 regarding those present at the resurrection at the Sea of Tiberias that this "other disciple" is not John, son of Zebedee. Those in attendance were described, in John 21:2, as Peter, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee and two "other disciples". As it was normal not to mention the name of this beloved disciple, it would stand to reason that he was one of the two "other disciples" and not one of the sons of Zebedee.
Prior to John 20:30-31, there is nothing indicating that the author is the beloved disciple, and John 19:35, seems to confirm that: He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth --that you also may believe.
This is written in the 3rd person, it is not written by the actual eyewitness. If you choose to accept this gospel's version of the crucifixion, then you will see that in John 19:26 it says that the beloved disciple was the only disciple to witness the crucifixion. The "HE" used in John 20:30-31 seems to describe the beloved disciple which would mean someone else was writing about him.
Peace to you,
Hana
Last edited:
Lazarus was raised from the dead and sat at the table. One would think he intended to eat.
Jn 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him.
This wording sure seems similar to me.
Jn 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.
It seems rather a common practice of Jesus after miracles of healing, that He commands the person be given something to eat. It also seems to be true that sick people tend to lose interest in eating. Thus eating is one sign of a return to normal daily living.
Jn 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him.
This wording sure seems similar to me.
Jn 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.
It seems rather a common practice of Jesus after miracles of healing, that He commands the person be given something to eat. It also seems to be true that sick people tend to lose interest in eating. Thus eating is one sign of a return to normal daily living.
*Hana*
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 249
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Peace Doug:
Well, now we have a dilema.
Lazarus, and many others, were resurrected, by the will of God. They required food, drink, etc. (all human functions), to maintain their life. But, they all had one thing in common....they all had to die. They were resurrected back to their former, mortal selves. This was not a spiritual resurrection. The following from Luke 20:34-36 explains a spiritual resurrection:
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. 36 For they can't die any more, for they are like the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.
As far as I know, Lazarus and the others are no longer living, so they "died again", which means there is obviously a difference between a mortal resurrection and a spiritual resurrection.
So, we now know, Jesus, pbuh, was not spiritually resurrected when He told the disciples to touch him because spirits do not have flesh and bones as He had. Therefore, I have to ask you: When did Jesus, pbuh, die again so He could be spiritually resurrected to not only save you from your sins, but to be "rejoined" as the 3rd member of the triunion?
Peace to you,
Hana
Thanks again. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because for some strange reason it's getting too emotional for me. It's not what anyone has said really, but rather I think if I am going to proceed with my looking into the muslim faith, I will need to do it with my fiance since I'm finding I need extra tlc, the more I learn.
Thanks though.
Thanks though.
I would like to claim to have all the answers, but I don't have them, so I must conjecture at this point.
1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
I believe that there will be people alive when Christ returns. I don't believe He is going to kill the living to resurrect them. Those who are alive will be given incorruptable bodies, bypassing physical death. Those who are dead will be resurrected, and then given incorruptable bodies. Then all will meet God for judgement. Some will be sent to heaven, some to hell.
I'll miss you. There are some good discussions on this board, but I spend too much time on here and am thinking about cutting back as well. I doubt that I will get any reverts to rerevert, but I need to learn others beliefs. By a Quran and study a way, (the read the Bible and study The Way).
*Hana*
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 249
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Peace to you Doug:
Regarding your previous post quoting the biblical verse it does confirm the difference between 2 types of resurrection. The verse is referring to the spiritual resurrection.
We have a similar understanding now it seems. As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus, pbuh, died, but we do believe He was taken up and will come again. Based on His own description of a spiritual resurrection, I don't believe Jesus, pbuh, in the biblical text died either, and was trying to show that He didn't die, but He was taken up and will come again.
I'd like to thank you for having this discussion, it was very interesting for me and I learned a lot.
Peace to you,
Hana
*Hana*
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 249
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Peace to you Doodlebug:
It's not at all strange to get emotional when discussing faith. Oh man, I used to be a mess. lol But, comparative religion is good as it not only gives us knowledge but teaches us to be tolerant when we have a better understanding of others' beliefs. I sincerely hope you continue with your learning.
Peace,
Hana