Jesus Dying on the Cross?

[Loki57]

I have a question that has recently come to me. I know, according to Islam that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross according to Muslims. That in his place was a look alike, someone who looked like him. Possibly Simon of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot. I think it more likely Judas Iscariot who is said to have betrayed Jesus and is it not said that it was someone who betrayed him that ended up on the cross in his place?

What I want to know is why the truth was not reveled until Mohammad PBUH 600 years later?

As I understand it, those who were close to Jesus knew he was not going to be placed on the cross, that it was someone in his place. Then he was raised to heaven. Why then didn't they reveal this to the world? That Jesus did not die on the cross? It would have been a blow to the Romans. Yes, you tried to kill our prophet but you failed? Why keep it a secret? Furthermore two of his closest disciples, Peter and John, both write Gospels that ended up in the Bible. Why didn't they right what is called the truth? Why wait until Mohammad?

In a way you could almost call Christianity the fault of Islam. If Jesus and his followers were Muslims. If the truth is Jesus did not die on the cross it should have been told. Why let people live under this false belief? Why let this idea go unchecked? Gospels were being written within the lifetimes of those who were close to Jesus, why didn't they correct this? Surely atleast at that time people would be overjoyed to know Jesus did not die on the cross? That in a way Muslims, even Jesus, his followers are all responsible for this? That for Christians to follow what is "wrong" is our own fault!

 

[Hijab is Noor]

Ayah an-Nisa` (Women) 4:157. and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions.

 

[Ümit]

I have a question that has recently come to me. I know, according to Islam that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross according to Muslims. That in his place was a look alike, someone who looked like him. Possibly Simon of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot. I think it more likely Judas Iscariot who is said to have betrayed Jesus and is it not said that it was someone who betrayed him that ended up on the cross in his place?

According to islamqa.info:

Praise be to Allah.

The Qur’aan states that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) was not crucified or killed, and that he was lifted up to heaven. There is no text of the Revelation that tells us the details of what happened on the day when that was made to appear to the Jews, but there is a saheeh report from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messiah (peace be upon him) said to those of his companions who were with him in the house: “Which of you will be made to look like me and be killed in my stead, and he will be with me in the same level as me (in Paradise)?” A young man who was one of the youngest of them stood up, and he said to him: “Sit down.” Then he repeated it and that young man stood up again, and he said: “Sit down.” Then he repeated it again and that young man stood up and said, “I (will do it).” He said: “You are the one.” So he was caused to look like ‘Eesa and ‘Eesa was lifted up from a window in the house to heaven. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer (4/337), commenting on this report: This is a saheeh isnaad going back to Ibn ‘Abbaas. Similarly it was narrated from more than one of the salaf that he said to them: “Which of you will be made to look like me and be killed in my stead, and he will be my companion in Paradise?” End quote.

Then he (may Allaah have mercy on him) said (4/341): Ibn Jareer favoured the view that all of his companions were made to look like ‘Eesa. End quote. This was mentioned in a report narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih which was narrated by Ibn Jareer (may Allaah have mercy on him) and quoted by Ibn Katheer (4/337), in which it states that when they surrounded ‘Eesa and his companions and entered upon them, “Allaah made them all appear in the form of ‘Eesa and they said to them, ‘You have bewitched us; send forth to us ‘Eesa or we will kill you all,’ until they sent forth one of their number after ‘Eesa promised Paradise to him, and they took him and crucified him.”

But Ibn Katheer said after that: This is a very strange story. End quote.

He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said (4/341): Some of the Christians claim that Judas Iscariot – who is the one who led the Jews to ‘Eesa – is the one who was made to look like ‘Eesa so they crucified him, and he said: I am not the one you want, I am the one who led you to him. Allaah knows best what really happened. End quote.

With that, Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) concluded his discussion of this topic: Allaah knows best what really happened.

Knowledge of this matter is of no great benefit; if we needed to know that, our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have told us.

And Allaah knows best.

What I want to know is why the truth was not reveled until Mohammad PBUH 600 years later?

As I understand it, those who were close to Jesus knew he was not going to be placed on the cross, that it was someone in his place. Then he was raised to heaven. Why then didn't they reveal this to the world? That Jesus did not die on the cross? It would have been a blow to the Romans. Yes, you tried to kill our prophet but you failed? Why keep it a secret? Furthermore two of his closest disciples, Peter and John, both write Gospels that ended up in the Bible. Why didn't they right what is called the truth? Why wait until Mohammad?

This is a misconception. The truth wasn't concealed at all. People who sincerely seeked the truth, knew it all along. Remember that the trinity wasn't a thing yet in early christianity. The Christians when Jesus as was alive, knew he was a prophet. by the end of the first cenury "after the crucifiction" people started to believe in Jesus as a god, and the trinitarian doctrine started mid-2nd century somewhere. Besides, Peter and John were not the author of the books Peter and John from the Bible as we know it. The oldest scripture of the Bible (only a small part of it in the size of a credit card) date from early 2nd century...so roughly 100 years after Jesus as. It was maybe dedicated to them, but nothing more.
But even, for the sake of argument, when they would have written that event down...it still would not make any difference...

Jesus as provided many many miracles and came with many evidences during his lifetime. miracles and evidences that impossibly be denied or ignored. Yet, none of them made a difference for the Jews and romans. You think, this one miracle would make the difference? People manipulated the scriptures throughout the history. They would just manipulate it as they like.

In a way you could almost call Christianity the fault of Islam. If Jesus and his followers were Muslims. If the truth is Jesus did not die on the cross it should have been told. Why let people live under this false belief? Why let this idea go unchecked?

but it wasn't. The truth was known among the believers. The ones that rejected Jesus as anyways were made to believe that they killed Jesus as....They were not open for the truth anyways. The real believers knew better than that.

Gospels were being written within the lifetimes of those who were close to Jesus, why didn't they correct this?

again, no they weren't. not till at least 100 years after that.

Surely atleast at that time people would be overjoyed to know Jesus did not die on the cross? That in a way Muslims, even Jesus, his followers are all responsible for this? That for Christians to follow what is "wrong" is our own fault!

There is no "fault". People who still care for the truth will see the truth.

 

[Martinus Luther]

The reason why I joined this Forum is just because of this thread.
The Quran is very clear on the Crucifixion of Jesus.
4: 157. And for their saying, "Indeed we killed the Messiah Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear to them. And indeed, those who differ in it became in doubt about it. They do not have any knowledge about it, except following some assumptions. And they certainly did not kill him.
158. Nay he was raised towards Allah Himself. And is Allah dear wise.
159. And there will be none of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who will not be believers in him before their death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

This is my question which No Muslim scholar could ever answer.
====Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie?====

 

[usul]

====Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie?====

The very first thing we have to understand, is that "Jesus" is not a proper name. It is a Rabbinical designation, a curse actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

Another explanation given is that the name "Yeshu" is actually an acronym for the formula ימח שמו וזכרו(נו)‎ (Yimach Shemo V'Zichro[no]), meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated".

The Rabbinical curse has actually worked out really well because we no longer know the true name of the Son of Mary.

Paul was very well aware of the fact that the term "Jeshu" is in fact a curse:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

So, there were two "Jeshu" brought in front of the Roman governor on that Passover night, two individuals accursed by the Rabbis, one of whom was called "Jeshu Bar-rhabban", meaning, the "accursed son of (an unknown) father", meaning, "the accursed -------". In other parts of the Gospels, he is often called the Son of (an unknown) Man, who is indeed the Son of Mary.

In the modern renditions of the Gospels, the name "Jeshu Bar-rhabban" was replaced by simply "Bar-rhabban". This is a forgery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.[SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#cite_note-18[/SUP] The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.[SUP][21][/SUP] He however does not account for the high priest Biblical Greek: Ἰάσων, romanized: Iásōn from 2 Maccabees 4:13, whose name seems to transliterate the same Aramaic name into Greek, as well as other bearers of the name Jesus mentioned by Josephus.[SUP][17][/SUP] It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.[SUP][22][/SUP]

It is the Codex Koridethi that is the correct document. As mentioned above, the other Gospels are deemed to be falsifications.

So, who exactly did the Roman governor release?

In one such instance, the "crowd" (ὄχλος : óchlos), "the Jews" and "the multitude" in some sources, are offered the choice to have either [Jesus] Barabbas or Jesus released from Roman custody. According to the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew,[SUP][3][/SUP] Mark,[SUP][4][/SUP] and Luke,[SUP][5][/SUP] and the account in John,[SUP][6][/SUP] the crowd chooses [Jesus[ Barabbas to be released

It is Christ, the Son of Mary, who was released by the Roman governor and not the other individual accursed by the Rabbis. Hence, "Jeshu Bar-rhabban" ("The accursed -------") was never crucified.

Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie? No, because the Romans did indeed crucify a Jeshu, i.e. an accursed individual, but they never crucified the "accursed -------".

Hence, Allah is obviously telling the truth in the Quran by pointing out that the Romans did not crucify the Son of Mary.

 

[Ümit]

The reason why I joined this Forum is just because of this thread.
The Quran is very clear on the Crucifixion of Jesus.
4: 157. And for their saying, "Indeed we killed the Messiah Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear to them. And indeed, those who differ in it became in doubt about it. They do not have any knowledge about it, except following some assumptions. And they certainly did not kill him.
158. Nay he was raised towards Allah Himself. And is Allah dear wise.
159. And there will be none of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who will not be believers in him before their death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

This is my question which No Muslim scholar could ever answer.
====Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie?====

Then I'm afraid you do not want to know the answer. I answered this question in this thread personally...and I am just a layman...not even a muslim scholar.

 

[Marwan-Maroc]

O God! Glory be to You, You are the Responder to prayers, thus I pray and beg and ask You to forgive my sins. You are the Most Great, there is no god but You, You are the King and Protector and Lord and Light and Truth and Ruler and Witness and Punisher and Rewarder and Forgiver and Creator of the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
----------
If the Quran says Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die on the cross (which is a stupid Christian thing) then he did not die on the cross. The Quran is from God. Listen to it!

God saved Jesus since he is a project, and he, is not needed to get crucified for others sins.

That's not how forgiveness of sins work.

God is the Forgiver, not dependent on sacrificing a human for anothers humans sins, He is the Most Merciful, it's God's Mercy ok instead of sacrifice.

And He is the Accepter of sincere repentance, a repenter who never does what he repented for again, is saved.

Prayer, repentance, never do it again, you are good to go my believing submitted brothers and sisters.

And indeed.

All glorification and praise be to God!

 

[Martinus Luther]

My question to Muslims is simple:
Did the witnesses at the Crucifixion lie when they reported that Jesus died on the Cross.
It is actually such a simple question, one can answer "YES", or "NO".

The answer I have is "Yes, the witnesses at the Crucifixion did see Jesus die on the Cross!

 

[Ümit]

My question to Muslims is simple:
Did the witnesses at the Crucifixion lie when they reported that Jesus died on the Cross.
It is actually such a simple question, one can answer "YES", or "NO".

The answer I have is "Yes, the witnesses at the Crucifixion did see Jesus die on the Cross!

The answer is unfortunately not a simple "YES" or "NO" answer, because the question is loaded with false premises and assumptions.
I'll list a few of them:
-Who were the witnesses? the trinity was not a thing back then. there were only those who believed in Jesus and those who were against him.
-Did those "witnesses" report anything at all that has survived untouched untill this day? The first known authors of the scriptures used in the Bible came 4 centuries after the event. Pretty sure he was not one of those witnesses.
-Jesus never dies on the cross. it just appeared like so for the "witnesses" who wanted to see that.

So the majority of the people who believed in Jesus fled. the majority of the people who stayed and "witnessed" the false Jesus on the cross were against Jesus anyways and just saw what they wanted to see and believe.
they never believed in Jesus when he performed all those miraracles in his life, so why would this event change their minds?

So they did see what they wanted to see.

You do believe that Jesus DID reappear on the third day (which Islam does not support nor mention) so you should not have an issue with this event at all. according to your belief, jesus could just reappear on the third day (because he wasnt dead at all) rectify the situation to his believers, stayed all he want and then ascent to heaven.

Again (Islaam does not support this)

IslaamQa about a similar question:

[FONT=&quot]Your scripture in which you believe says that the disciples (followers of the Messiah) did not see the crucifixion; rather on that day they were fleeing and hiding from their enemies, so how could they be eyewitnesses to something that they did not see?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We will quote from your scripture and the words of your scholars words to prove that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mark says:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mark 15:40-41.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matthew says something similar (Matthew 27:55-56).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Luke says:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][Luke 23:49].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John says:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][John 19:23].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John Fenton says: The disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and even though Peter had followed him from afar to the courtyard of the high priest, we do not hear anything more about him, after he denied Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that the witnesses to the crucifixion were women who had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem; they saw his burial and discovered the tomb empty on the Sunday morning, and they met Jesus after his resurrection.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The scholars commented on what John said about Mary, the mother of the Messiah, being present at the cross by saying: That is not possible at all, that the relatives and friends of Jesus would be allowed to stand near the cross.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, commenting on the differences in the gospels concerning those who witnessed the crucifixion: We find in the (three) synoptic Gospels that only the women followed Jesus, and that the list which was written very carefully and in precise detail did not include his mother – and that they were watching from afar.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But in John, we find that his mother Mary stood with the two other Marys and the “beloved disciple” beneath the cross, and from that time, the beloved disciple took this story to his close friends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the same time, his mother does not appear in Jerusalem – according to the ancient texts – except just before the feast of Pentecost, when she is accompanied by his brothers (Acts 1:14).

So, according to what your scripture says, none of the disciples of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion at all; rather those who were present were some of the women, although the Gospels differ as to their number and identity.[/FONT]

furthermore in the same reaction:

[FONT=&quot]The fourth fallacy is your mentioning of “recurring testimony [shahaadat at-tawaatur]”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tawaatur [translated above as recurring] refers to when a large number of people narrate something from a similarly large number, from a similarly large number, and so on, until the chain of narration ends with a large number of people who witnessed the event in question and reported it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is not applicable in the case of the crucifixion, as we have explained above. None of the followers of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion, apart from a few women, and some reports in the Gospels even doubt that they were there. This doubt comes from Christian scholars themselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, who stood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them the opportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified. Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was the Messiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We looked at those who reported the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), and we found a large number who were no doubt truthful in their transmission of it, generation after generation, all the way back to those who claimed to have witnessed his crucifixion. Then when it comes to that group, it is a different story, as they are no more than guards who were there under orders, and you could expect them to lie and accept bribes in return for saying something false.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Christians affirm that they were not able to capture him by day for fear of the masses, and that they could only capture him at night when the people had dispersed following the Passover; and that he was only on the cross for six hours of the day, after which he was taken down; and that he was only crucified in a place outside the city, in a potter’s field that was used only for obtaining clay, and was not a place that was known for the carrying out of crucifixions and was not allocated for that purpose. Moreover, the guards were bribed to say that his companions stole his body, so they did that. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene – who was a woman of the common people – did not come close to the site of his crucifixion; rather she was standing and watching from afar. All of this is to be found in the text of the Gospel that they have. Therefore it cannot be true that the story of the crucifixion was transmitted via a process of tawaatur. Rather the apparent meaning of the story, as it was narrated, indicates that there was some discretion and concealment, and prior agreement on what story was to be told. On that night, the disciples – according to the Gospel text – were in a state of fear and were absent from the scene, having fled for their lives and hidden themselves, even though Simon Peter had entered the house of the priest Caiaphas by day, where the priest said to him: You are one of his followers, but Peter denied it and fled from the house.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore you cannot find anyone who transmitted the report of his crucifixion that you can be sure is telling the truth. So how could anyone say that it was transmitted via a process of tawaatur (narrated by so many from so many)?[/FONT]

 

[Martinus Luther]

Furthermore on your claim. "-Did those "witnesses" report anything at all that has survived untouched untill this day? The first known authors of the scriptures used in the Bible came 4 centuries after the event. Pretty sure he was not one of those witnesses.-Jesus never dies on the cross. it just appeared like so for the "witnesses" who wanted to see that."

You have a problem about the oldest complete New Testament being 300 years after Jesus.
But you believe in a man that came 630 years after Jesus and tells a totally 180 degree different story than what the whole Christian world believed in!

To do that, you will have to prove that Muhammad was a prophet.
Open a thread so we can discuss those facts.

But I am amazed at your claim that the Bible are not the original!
The way I read from the Quran is that Allah says:
1. No one can change His Words!
2. The Torah, Zabur and Injeel and Quran is His books.
Do you say the Quran is wrong in these ayas?

 

[Ümit]

Oh, Wow!
The Quran says the witnesses at the Crucifixion says they saw Jesus die on the Cross, and you have to get pages of stories to change its meaning?

Surah An-Nisa Ayat 157

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.​

"But another was made resemble him to them"
Which means nobody saw Jesus die on the cross. "The witnesses" you talk about were mostly soldiers who easily could lie or bribed for money. The believers of Jesus were not even present because they fled except for a couple of women who watched from too far to confirm whether it was indeed Jesus or not.
Most scholars agree on that as I showed you.

But lets look at what you say.

You say, "The answer is unfortunately not a simple "YES" or "NO" answer, because the question is loaded with false premises and assumptions."
That's not true, the Quran says the people saw Jesus die on the cross, what false premise do you see in my question on what the Quran says?

as if the people watching the crucifiction were normal neutral people who have witnessed the event and gave an honoust trustworthy testimony about it.

You say:"Did those "witnesses" report anything at all that has survived untouched until this day? The first known authors of the scriptures used in the Bible came 4 centuries after the event. Pretty sure he was not one of those witnesses.
-Jesus never dies on the cross. it just appeared like so for the "witnesses" who wanted to see that.

The facts: This is not true at all. I agree, The first "Surviving Complete Bibles" date from the 4th century. There are hundreds of partial manuscripts and pages of the NT discovered over the last 150 years to completely compile 80% of the New Testament we have today. The writings of the Church Fathers attests to those documents. We have the Didache which is quoted in 90 AD, 57 years after Jesus. The whole Old Testament has complete manuscripts dating from 196 BC.

Does Didache or any other manuscript give you clear eye witness accounts?

So to summarize this case:
-Majority of the believers wasn't present during the crucifiction
-the few women who did believe and saw it happening, were too far away to be certain it was indeed Jesus
-the poeple who were close were mostly soldiers or other enemies of Jesus who could easily be lying.

so what witnesses are you exactly talking about?

The OT does not speak about Jesus.

Anyhow, why will this have an effect on what the Quran says that people saw Jesus die on the cross?

Nothing. But as I stated earlier, The Quraan never states that "people saw jesus die on the cross"
It clearly states: "it appeared to them like so"

Deleted post

This is totally irrelevant to this topic. this is a tactic to try to distract from the current topic.
Please do not do that and stick to the topic we are discussing now.

 

[Ümit]

Furthermore on your claim. "-Did those "witnesses" report anything at all that has survived untouched untill this day? The first known authors of the scriptures used in the Bible came 4 centuries after the event. Pretty sure he was not one of those witnesses.-Jesus never dies on the cross. it just appeared like so for the "witnesses" who wanted to see that."

You have a problem about the oldest complete New Testament being 300 years after Jesus.
But you believe in a man that came 630 years after Jesus and tells a totally 180 degree different story than what the whole Christian world believed in!

180 degree different story? You do realize that every sent prophet preached the monotheism, right?
Abraham as, Noah as, Moses as, Solomon as, Jonas as, David as...none of them spoke about a triune God.
The only odd one out is Jesus according to your belief.
And then you try to claim that we have a 180 degrees different story?

To do that, you will have to prove that Muhammad was a prophet.
Open a thread so we can discuss those facts.

But I am amazed at your claim that the Bible are not the original!
The way I read from the Quran is that Allah says:
1. No one can change His Words!
2. The Torah, Zabur and Injeel and Quran is His books.
Do you say the Quran is wrong in these ayas?

No. Allah promised us to protect and preserve the Quraan in verse 15:9

He did not do that with other scriptures. That is a huge difference.
The Thorah, Zabur, Injeel and Quraan are His words and we do believe in them...however, the Thorah, Zabur and Injeel did not survive until today in their original form unfortunately.
The Bible is not the Injeel.

We muslims have 2 major sources:
1. the Quraan, which is literally the word of Allah from the first letter to the last one. 100% true
2. the hadeeth, which are narrations of people about Muhammad sas. They just reported anything that our Prophet sas has said or done in various situations. Not always 100% true or trustworthy.

The NT is someway comparable with our hadeeth, with the difference that our hadeeth are observations directly from people who have actually witnessed the event, and the NT not.

 

[Martinus Luther]

OK, so now that I proved to you that your claim that the Bible was corrupted is not true, not that it was me who told you, but your own Quran...
Did the people who were present during the Crucifixion saw Jesus die on the cross, or not?

 

[Martinus Luther]

It is 2024
We have computer technology and e dictionaries, AI and language translators.
I dont need any Muslim to tell me what the Arabic says.
I translated the Quran for myself from the Hafs Arabic.

 

[Ümit]

It was you that went of the topic when you told me that the Quran is to be believed because it is 100% the word of God.
You also came up with the claim that the Bible is corrupt.
Why do you allow yourself to deviate from the topic, but a Christian is not allowed to do that?

True. Im sorry if I did. You can also ask me to be on topic if I do that. No problem.

about the witnesses

You never reacted on my arguments (backed with works of christian scholars) about who the witnesses present at the crucifiction were.
This is a crucial part to understand in order to answer your question
"Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie?"

I'll summarize it:
The Bible says that the disciples (followers of the Messiah) did not see the crucifixion; rather on that day they were fleeing and hiding from their enemies:

Mark says:
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.
In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there”
Mark 15:40-41.
Matthew says something similar (Matthew 27:55-56).
Luke says:
“But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things”
[Luke 23:49].
John says:
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” [John 19:23]

The scholars commented on what John said about Mary, the mother of the Messiah, being present at the cross by saying: That is not possible at all, that the relatives and friends of Jesus would be allowed to stand near the cross.

If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, who stood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them the opportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified. Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was the Messiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.

Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
We looked at those who reported the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), and we found a large number who were no doubt truthful in their transmission of it, generation after generation, all the way back to those who claimed to have witnessed his crucifixion. Then when it comes to that group, it is a different story, as they are no more than guards who were there under orders, and you could expect them to lie and accept bribes in return for saying something false.

As you can see, the witnesses you are talking about were only on the side of Jesus' enemies...a one-sided story. not neutral at all. They could easily lie for money or fame.

 

[Martinus Luther]

True. Im sorry if I did. You can also ask me to be on topic if I do that. No problem.

OK, I think you understand that when we debate about points, point by point investigation is very efficient.
It does not help to get many points posted hoping the argument is a hit and win.
about the witnesses

You never reacted on my arguments (backed with works of christian scholars) about who the witnesses present at the crucifiction were.
This is a crucial part to understand in order to answer your question
"Did the witnesses to the Crucifixion of Jesus lie?"

I'll summarize it:
The Bible says that the disciples (followers of the Messiah) did not see the crucifixion; rather on that day they were fleeing and hiding from their enemies:

Mark says:
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.
In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there”
Mark 15:40-41.
Matthew says something similar (Matthew 27:55-56).
Luke says:
“But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things”
[Luke 23:49].
John says:
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” [John 19:23]

I dont think you ever read the Gospels. It is very clear that the apostles were present during Jesus' crucifixion.
As you quoted the verse from [John 19:23] and [Luke 23:49]
We see that the 3 Mary's Salome and other women were there.
"A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him." (Luke 23:27)
"When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, 'Woman,here is your son,' and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John 19:26-27)
Matthew, Mark, and Luke draw special attention to the centurion in charge of the carrying out of the crucifixion, and they give some account of how he was impressed in the presence of the Crucified.(Matthew 27:54) (Luke 23:47)(Mark 15:39)

The scholars commented on what John said about Mary, the mother of the Messiah, being present at the cross by saying: That is not possible at all, that the relatives and friends of Jesus would be allowed to stand near the cross.

This is not true at all and I would like to know who these "Scholars" are that have more knowledge than the Apostles who wrote about the Crucifixion from 4 witness accounts.
I will appreciate it if you can give me the names of these guys please.
The evidence is contrary to such statements. All the Apostles of Jesus, except for John, was eventually killed for refusing to deny that Jesus died on the Cross, but rose on the 3rd day alive and ascended into heaven. They were burned alive, crucified etc. for refusing to worship the Caesar. John was lowered into boiling oil, but survived and lived past 95AD.

If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, who stood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them the opportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified. Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was the Messiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.

Lets look at the claim that all the disciples ran away.
Yes they did! That was the night before!
Peter for instance remorse when he realized that he forsook Jesus 3 times. Do you think He stayed away from the Crucifixion?
Joseph of Arimathea was also a disciple of Jesus, he was there. He took a very expensive new grave and used it for Jesus.

Taking all the evidence, and the historical references in the Gospels about Jesus' ministry, you would also have read how Jesus preached to crowds of people as a time.

Matt. 18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

5000 men! If you add the women and children, there must have been at least 12 000 people listening to him!
In Mark 8:1-9, we learn that 4 000 men (no less than 8 000 people) stayed with Jesus for 3 days, and he fed them all with 7 Loaves of bread and 2 fish.
Jesus did not preach in obscurity. He had the whole Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Galilee shaken and disturbed to the level that the Leaders of the Jewish Government needed to have him killed. Their own government positions were in danger.

The people he cured were not just here and there to be counted on one hand, no... it was immense!
Therefore, during the crucifixion there must have been thousands of people who witnessed His death!
Furthermore, to say that no one was allowed close to the cross is also not true. There were centurions and guards that prohibited people to come close to the victims on the cross, but they were allowed to be close enough to be spoken to.

Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
We looked at those who reported the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), and we found a large number who were no doubt truthful in their transmission of it, generation after generation, all the way back to those who claimed to have witnessed his crucifixion. Then when it comes to that group, it is a different story, as they are no more than guards who were there under orders, and you could expect them to lie and accept bribes in return for saying something false.

As you can see, the witnesses you are talking about were only on the side of Jesus' enemies...a one-sided story. not neutral at all. They could easily lie for money or fame.

OK, I assume this is a Muslim imaam who is attempting to defend the Quran when someone asked him:
Did the witnesses lie when they said they saw Jesus die on the Cross?

 

[Martinus Luther]

Ümit,
Lets look at the facts.
It does not help to change an ant heap into a mountain, thinking it will change the facts.

It is simple.
1. The Quran says that Allah made it to appear that Jesus died on the cross.
2. Allah says the people who say they saw this happen, are wrong it did not.
3. Now why all the references to the Gospels on the Crucifixion?

I am quite contend that the New Testament writers says Jesus died on the cross.
Even the words of Jesus when He appeared to the apostles, and disciples and hundreds more for 40 days, He attested that He died and rose from the dead.
Not only this, but before he was crucified, he told his apostles many times that he will be handd over to be killed.
Anyone that denies this, is making the Jesus of the Bible a liar!

So, lets look at what the Quran says, and sort out the problem that Allah said that...
He deceived everyone for 600 years that Jesus died on the cross.

That is the problem I have with the Quran.

 

[Ümit]

Ümit,
Lets look at the facts.
It does not help to change an ant heap into a mountain, thinking it will change the facts.

It is simple.
1. The Quran says that Allah made it to appear that Jesus died on the cross.

yes that is correct

2. Allah says the people who say they saw this happen, are wrong it did not.

true

3. Now why all the references to the Gospels on the Crucifixion?

To show an indication who those people were who say that. They were enemies of jesus anyways. Jesus performed many many miracles in his lifetime and they witnessed it but yet never believed in him.
so it would change nothing to them. they still would not believe.

I am quite contend that the New Testament writers says Jesus died on the cross.

they do tend to claim it yes...but whether that is true, is a different story.

Even the words of Jesus when He appeared to the apostles, and disciples and hundreds more for 40 days, He attested that He died and rose from the dead.

Please show us where in the Bible Jesus says directly that he died on the cross and then rose from the dead.

Not only this, but before he was crucified, he told his apostles many times that he will be handd over to be killed.
Anyone that denies this, is making the Jesus of the Bible a liar!

So, lets look at what the Quran says, and sort out the problem that Allah said that...
He deceived everyone for 600 years that Jesus died on the cross.

That is the problem I have with the Quran.

Again...Allah does not deceive. But even for the sake of the argument if there were witnesses among them who were righteous and who saw Jesus on the cross dying and believed it...
or even the christian generations until the revelation of the Quraan who believed that jesus dies on the cross because their forefathers witnessed that.
Allah would not condemn them for believing that. they wont be judged or punished for that.
Allah condemned only those christians that saw Jesus as a god and worshipped him.

 

[anatolian]

Quran says “wa-lakin shubbiha lahum” (But similar to them). A similar of the event ( crusifixion/killing of Jesus) was made to appear to them. So they thought that he was crucified/killed and recorded so.

The point is, Allah decieved only the enemies of Jesus to save him. Allah didnt tell people that you will be saved if you believe Jesus died on the cross. This was invented by Paul.

 

[Martinus Luther]

OK, Let me show you that Jesus said He will die, and raise from Death. He also mentioned that He will be crucified!
And I will throw in the verses where he appeared to the Apostles who were very afraid when they saw Jesus because they knew He was dead!