What's Allah's part in our salvation?

[Redeemed]

If it is up to us and our good works, what part does Allah have saving us especially since we have a supernatural being (Satan) tempting us to evil so we can go to hell?

 

[MuhammadRizan]

Islam.

 

[- Qatada -]

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.

The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]​

 

[Woodrow]

The answer to that is no different than the Christian view. Allah(swt) alone is our Salvation. To worship Allah(swt) is the path to salvation.

As a Christian your view is no different. What is God's(swt) role in your salvation? Is it not to provide a path for you to follow and obey to gain salvation? You do belief Jesus(as) is God(swt) and that the only way to gain salvation is to follow Jesus(as) aka God(swt) in the Christian view.

The only difference is we choose to follow God(swt) directly, with no intermediary between us. Allah(swt) has sufficient ability to forgive the sins of those who worship him, with no need to confuse the issue and present us with a man who we are to believe is Him and to follow the man who we are to believe is God(swt) and not worship God(swt) in his own divine self. To me it makes no sense to worship God(swt) in any manner except directly to Him. God(swt) is God(swt) is God(swt), why look for a need to humanize Him and seek to worship him as a man? Is there some problem with accepting God(swt) as the Divine creator of all and the only one worthy of worship?

 

[khairullah]

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.


The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]

Masha Allah very good answer.

 

[Slamdunk]

The answer to that is no different than the Christian view. Allah(swt) alone is our Salvation. To worship Allah(swt) is the path to salvation.

God(swt) is God(swt) is God(swt), why look for a need to humanize Him and seek to worship him as a man? Is there some problem with accepting God(swt) as the Divine creator of all and the only one worthy of worship?

[Slamdunk] Hello Woodrow. The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). The Quran says many times to revere Jesus and "the Book," which means the Scriptures (Bible). But the problem I see is that muslims will only accept what agrees with the Quran.

For example, Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."(Matt. 5:8). He also said, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11) Now muslims will readily accept these as accurate recordings of what Jesus said. But the same Bible that records the Jesus saying those things also records him saying, "I am the Son of God." (John 10:36). This same Jesus is also recorded as saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:7) He said this after he was crucified.

But muslims arbitrarily strike these two verses, and the many others which deal with his Deity, Sonship, crucifixion and resurrection, because they disagree with the Quran. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't really say those things and that they were added for whatever reason, corrupting the original gospel. But there are also historical writings which confirm Jesus was crucified:

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Annals 15 -44

The Bible records that Tiberius and Pontius Pilate reigned during the time of Jesus (Luke 3:1)

Also, the Jewish Talmud records Jesus being crucified:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a)

Finally, Gabriel, who muslims accept as an Archangel, told Daniel that Messiah would be "cut off."(Dan. 9:26)

All these are powerful non-gospel/new testament affirmations of Jesus being crucified. Is it possible that Muhammed recorded false information?

I realize the Quran says it only appeared that Jesus was crucified and that muslims believe someone else was crucified in his place. But the Quran doesn't say that. So the big issue is, does one verse in the Quran cancel out all the historical, prophetical and New Testament evidence of Jesus' crucifixion?

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

[Slamdunk] Hello Woodrow. The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). The Quran says many times to revere Jesus and "the Book," which means the Scriptures (Bible). But the problem I see is that muslims will only accept what agrees with the Quran.

Naturally we will only accept what agrees with the Qur'an. We know that to be true. It does not make any sense to accept anything we do not know to be true or have seen to be false.

For example, Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."(Matt. 5:8). He also said, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11) Now muslims will readily accept these as accurate recordings of what Jesus said. But the same Bible that records the Jesus saying those things also records him saying, "I am the Son of God." (John 10:36). This same Jesus is also recorded as saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:7) He said this after he was crucified.

Sounds like there is an error or a mistranslation since it is obvious that the second part is in conflict with the Qur'an.

But muslims arbitrarily strike these two verses, and the many others which deal with his Deity, Sonship, crucifixion and resurrection, because they disagree with the Quran. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't really say those things and that they were added for whatever reason, corrupting the original gospel. But there are also historical writings which confirm Jesus was crucified:

Historical writing do not always = True. The book of gilgamish is a historical writing yet few people today would say it is true in all aspects.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Annals 15 -44

The Bible records that Tiberius and Pontius Pilate reigned during the time of Jesus (Luke 3:1)

Also, the Jewish Talmud records Jesus being crucified:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a)

Finally, Gabriel, who muslims accept as an Archangel, told Daniel that Messiah would be "cut off."(Dan. 9:26)

All these are powerful non-gospel/new testament affirmations of Jesus being crucified. Is it possible that Muhammed recorded false information?

I realize the Quran says it only appeared that Jesus was crucified and that muslims believe someone else was crucified in his place. But the Quran doesn't say that. So the big issue is, does one verse in the Quran cancel out all the historical, prophetical and New Testament evidence of Jesus' crucifixion?

Peace

There is no doubt that many people did and do believe it was Jesus(as) who was crucified. It only makes sense that most recordings of it would say it was Jesus(as) who was crucified. Because so many people were convinced it was Jesus(as) does not prove it was Jesus(as).

 

[Slamdunk]

Naturally we will only accept what agrees with the Qur'an. We know that to be true. It does not make any sense to accept anything we do not know to be true or have seen to be false.

Sounds like there is an error or a mistranslation since it is obvious that the second part is in conflict with the Qur'an.

Hello Woodrow. I realize and respect the faith of muslims that the Quran is not in error on anything. But I think it is reasonable to consider the following:

Over the centuries, far more people have believed and accepted that Jesus was the crucified Son of God, than muslims who have not.

One man, Muhammed, recorded only one statement asserting that Jesus was not crucified.

OT prophets, whom muslims say they believe, foretold the crucifixion.

Secular historians recorded the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus, among others).

It is likely that the image on the Shroud of Turin is Jesus.

From a neutral standpoint, one would conclude that the evidence supports the crucifixion.

Muhammed may have gotten most things right, but how can you be sure that he got it right when he recorded Jesus was not crucified? Muslims say that the Bible prophets and authors made errors, so why couldn't Muhammed?

WE both agree that Gabriel was God's archangel. But it's interesting to note that the Bible and Quran have him saying opposite things about the crucifixion. We also agree that faith is a powerful thing

Peace

 

[Joe98]

If it is up to us and our good works, what part does Allah have saving us

Why do you NEED to be saved? Are you bad or something?

-

 

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow. I realize and respect the faith of muslims that the Quran is not in error on anything. But I think it is reasonable to consider the following:

I thank you for starting off on a peaceful note

Over the centuries, far more people have believed and accepted that Jesus was the crucified Son of God, than muslims who have not.

Over the Centuries far more people have followed polytheism than both of us combined. does that make them right?

One man, Muhammed, recorded only one statement asserting that Jesus was not crucified.

You believe one man said it, we believe it was revealed by God(swt)

OT prophets, whom muslims say they believe, foretold the crucifixion.

If you read the Jewish thread, (Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew) You will find that the Jews disagree with those translations.

Secular historians recorded the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus, among others).

that is as it should be. The people did believe it was Jesus(as)

It is likely that the image on the Shroud of Turin is Jesus.

When I was a seminarian to be a Catholic Priest, I too believed that. However, as a seminarian I soon found that was not the view of the Vatican.

The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

The Vatican still does not make any official claim that the image is of Jesus(as) Scientific evidence seems to indicate it is a Middle ages produced art work.

PARIS, June 21 (AFP) - A French magazine said on Tuesday it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fake.
"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue. The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of
Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

From a neutral standpoint, one would conclude that the evidence supports the crucifixion

.

there is no question that somebody was crucified and those present did believe it was Jesus(as)

Muhammed may have gotten most things right, but how can you be sure that he got it right when he recorded Jesus was not crucified? Muslims say that the Bible prophets and authors made errors, so why couldn't Muhammed?

The errors made by the prophets were minor personal errors and not related to any revelations from God(swt)

WE both agree that Gabriel was God's archangel. But it's interesting to note that the Bible and Quran have him saying opposite things about the crucifixion. We also agree that faith is a powerful thing

We agree on that

Peace

And peace to you also

 

[Slamdunk]

I thank you for starting off on a peaceful note

Hello Woodrow, and thank you likewise. May I ask where you live?

Over the Centuries far more people have followed polytheism than both of us combined. does that make them right?

We don't believe so because the combined religions and all the denominations therein of Islam, Judaism and Christianity have never believed in more than one God and, in our view, makes them right. Regardless how many religions are involved, it is a faith issue in all.

You believe one man said it, we believe it was revealed by God(swt)

Yes, I accept that.

If you read the Jewish thread, (Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew) You will find that the Jews disagree with those translations.

Yes, I am also aware of that. Isa. 53 is the key chapter over which Christians and Jews differ. They believe Isaiah is talking about God's servant Israel, while Christians believe it speaks of a human suffering servant, or Messiah. While it is true there are verses identifying Israel as God's servant, there are certain verses in chap. 53 that seem awkward towards that position. One example is 53:12 where it says, "He (the servant) poured out his soul unto death...and he bore the sin of many." I just don't find anywhere in the scriptures where Israel poured out its soul unto death and bore the sin of many. Whose sin did Israel bear and how did she do it? I realize that the Jews have a traditional response, but, in my view, none that can be related to scripture.

Another verse is Dan. 9:26 where the Prophet said Messiah would enter Jerusalem exactly 173,880 days from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Nehemiah. 2:5-8). That decree was issued in Mar. 444 BC and 173,880 days later Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, as prophesied (Zech. 9:9), claiming to be the Messiah (John 4:26). And I realize that our Jewish also have a response to that. But all a person can do is read what is written and figure it out for themselves.

When I was a seminarian to be a Catholic Priest, I too believed that. However, as a seminarian I soon found that was not the view of the Vatican.
The Vatican still does not make any official claim that the image is of Jesus(as) Scientific evidence seems to indicate it is a Middle ages produced art work. Source: [URL="http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html"

I checked this and found other sources that are saying the carbon dates show the shroud to be much older.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

there is no question that somebody was crucified and those present did believe it was Jesus(as)

I would think that Mary, above anyone else, would have known if it were not her son who was on that cross.

The errors made by the prophets were minor personal errors and not related to any revelations from God(swt)

I don't think a prophet of God would make "any" flaws. What I think happened is that there are some passages that may have experienced inconsequential transcription errors. There are other passages that appear to be contradictory, but I believe they are in the realm of difficulty, not error.

Where does the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified. I used to know where it was but have forgotten. Thanks

God bless

 

[Woodrow]

Hello Woodrow, and thank you likewise. May I ask where you live?

A strong hint for that can be seen in my signature at the bottom of this post just above the (Is Islam Respectful of.....) and another spot is in my profile, over there <--- just under my Avatar. Another hint would be to check this thread.

http://www.islamicboard.com/halal-fun/48080-all-about-texas-even-iffin-yall-dint-wanna-know.html

Where does the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified. I used to know where it was but have forgotten. Thanks

It is actually mentioned in several Surahs. I just happen to remember these ayyats off hand.


4:154. And We lifted the mountain (Sainai) over them at (the li taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant. P Y C
4:155. Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few. P Y C

4:156. And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny. P Y C
4:157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. P Y C

4:158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. P Y C


Shakir's Quran Translation

God bless

And Peace to You

I will come back later Inshallah, to respond to the other questions. At the moment, I'm a bit tied up chasing Grand Kids.

 

[Slamdunk]

4:157. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. P Y C
4:158. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Thanks, Woodrow. I have written this down so I won't forget it. Let me ask this question. Where it says, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah? I assume "their" means the Jews. If so, when did they ever say they killed the Messiah, or even thought they killed him? Is this verse saying that the Jews thought they put Jesus on the cross and killed him, but it was actually someone else? And in the meantime, Allah took Jesus up wherever he may have been? But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this.

I will come back later Inshallah, to respond to the other questions. At the moment, I'm a bit tied up chasing Grand Kids.

A very worthy pursuit Thanks

 

[Woodrow]

Thanks, Woodrow. I have written this down so I won't forget it. Let me ask this question. Where it says, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah? I assume "their" means the Jews. If so, when did they ever say they killed the Messiah, or even thought they killed him? Is this verse saying that the Jews thought they put Jesus on the cross and killed him, but it was actually someone else? And in the meantime, Allah took Jesus up wherever he may have been? But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this.



A very worthy pursuit Thanks

Peace Slamdunk,

Here is an area where there is better explanations then I can give. However, I suspect you are more interested in my own reasons and what I have personally read.

Keep in mind the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt) and not the word of Muhammad(PBUH). Many things were already known. It was known at the time that people believed Jesus(as) had been crucified.

But the verse doesn't really say that someone else was substituted for Jesus. Please help me out on this

.

That is true. But so far I have seen no other explanation that could explain those ayyats.

Now since Allah(as) told Muhammad(PBUH) that Jesus(as) was not crucified and that he was brought up to heaven, the only conclusion is the people crucified somebody else that they believed to be Jesus(as) it is apparent that even those close to him believed it was Jesus(as) the only way this can happen is that for some reason Allah(swt) caused another person to appear to be Jesus(as)

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(as). The only way this is plausible is because Allah(swt) himself said those words.

I would say that many Muslims especialy us reverts have different reasons why we believe the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). For myself, it is based upon the linguistics of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the only book written in Qur'anic Arabic and so far nobody has been able to compose as much as one sentence in it, much less 114 Surahs. I was/am fascinated in linguistics and the Semetic languages are my favorites. I love Arabic for it's richness and the structure. But, the spoken or colloquial Arabic really is not all that pleasent sounding, but the Qur'an is like the ultimate song. I am near deaf and can not hear most tones, yet I have no trouble listening to the Qur'an and it is as clear as if I have no hearing loss. Another oddity about it. there are very many dialects of Arabic and it is difficult for a person of one dialect to understand a person speaking in another dialect, but all Arabic speaking people have no trouble understanding the Qur'an even though true Qur'anic Arabic is not spoken colloquially. I am satisfied that the Qur'an could not have been written by a human, especially an illiterate human who could neither read nor right.

Of course since I reverted I have discovered many more things to solidify my belief that the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt), but I wont side track this thread as those things are discussed in many other threads.

 

[Joe98]

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah.

I thought the words came from an angel.

As I understand it Muhammad did not hear the words direct from God.

-

 

[Woodrow]

I checked this and found other sources that are saying the carbon dates show the shroud to be much older.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

Greetings slamdunk

One of the strongest bits of evidence I find is that when the shroud was first discovered. Pope Clement VII declared that it was not authentic. That immediately leaves a problem. If it truly was authentic, the Catholic concept of Papal infallibility went out the window. There had to have been legitimate reason for it to believed not to be authentic, for a Pope to risk making that declaration. Another problem is it was unknown and not seen until 1357. Oddly it pops up in the possession of an Italian Nobleman and Merchant. How come nobody ever heard of it until 1357?

I would think that Mary, above anyone else, would have known if it were not her son who was on that cross.

True, and that is very strong evidence that the people did believe they crucified Jesus.

I don't think a prophet of God would make "any" flaws. What I think happened is that there are some passages that may have experienced inconsequential transcription errors. There are other passages that appear to be contradictory, but I believe they are in the realm of difficulty, not error

.

Yes, it is true that translation of the Qur'an do have errors. However, a translation is not the Qur'an, the Qur'an can only be written in Arabic, more specifically in Qur'anic Arabic and that has remained unchanged. The written Qur'an is the same world wide and unchanged throughout the centuries. An Indonesian Hafiz who does not speak Arabic has memorized the exact same words as a British Hafiz who does not speak Arabic, both of them will recite the exact same words. A memory storage system that has existed unchanged since the first day the Qur'an was heard.

God Bless

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

Peace Slamdunk,
Now since Allah(as) told Muhammad(PBUH) that Jesus(as) was not crucified and that he was brought up to heaven, the only conclusion is the people crucified somebody else that they believed to be Jesus(as) it is apparent that even those close to him believed it was Jesus(as) the only way this can happen is that for some reason Allah(swt) caused another person to appear to be Jesus(as)

[Day] Hello Woodrow. I guess this would be the only logical conclusion from a muslim perspective. IOW, Allah supernaturally changed someone to look like Jesus. As I mentioned before, surely Mary would have known who was on the cross, but if Allah changed the appearance of another person, than she too was would not have known the difference. It's just that, to me, it seems like a scenario that sounds so surreal and inconsistent with the way God does things.

If what muslims believe happened, from the Christian perspective, it would be devastating to Christianity, which has as its foundational doctrine, the death of Jesus for sin. If he didn't die on that cross, then we are all (including muslims) dead in our sins. Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24). Unless we believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be (Savior and Lord), we have no hope of heaven because our sins cannot be forgiven by someone who died on the cross that was not Jesus. I realize this is doctrine that is not accepted by muslims, but I only say that to show what it would mean if it wasn't Jesus on the cross.

Much of this comes from faith that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(as). The only way this is plausible is because Allah(swt) himself said those words.

Right, just as we say the Bible is the Word of God. I have to believe that before Muhammed was given the Quran, he at least had heard that Jesus was crucified and had risen. Before 600AD, and after, that message was spreading around the world. Many people have believed and many others haven't. Why we choose to believe what we believe is interesting. It certainly makes for diverse points of view. We both realize that our last breath will reveal the truth. So this basically leaves us tugging on a similar oar, only in different boats.

I would say that many Muslims especialy us reverts

Were you muslim at first, then went to the catholic priesthood and then reverted back to Islam?

Peace

 

[Slamdunk]

Greetings slamdunk

One of the strongest bits of evidence I find is that when the shroud was first discovered. Pope Clement VII declared that it was not authentic. That immediately leaves a problem. If it truly was authentic, the Catholic concept of Papal infallibility went out the window. There had to have been legitimate reason for it to believed not to be authentic, for a Pope to risk making that declaration.

I think papal infallibility relates more to doctrine then peripheral matters. But I wonder why Clement said the shroud was not Jesus' I guess we don't know why. But I did find this at:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/shroud_of_turin.htm

c.1390
"Antipope Clement VII (r. 1378–94) declared the shroud to be an appropriate object of devotion, so long as it was not regarded as the true shroud. But Julius II and subsequent popes took its authenticity for granted."

This is an interesting cite because it provides a time line for the shroud.

Another problem is it was unknown and not seen until 1357. Oddly it pops up in the possession of an Italian Nobleman and Merchant. How come nobody ever heard of it until 1357?

This same cite has the shroud seen well before 1357. Why nothing was mentioned about it before the sixth century is anyone's guess. The shroud is indeed a mytery, especially the image on it. No one knows how it got there. Could it have been put there when he rose from the dead? I don't know.

True, and that is very strong evidence that the people did believe they crucified Jesus.

I think another strong argument that Jesus was crucified is that most of His Apostles were martyred for spreading the message of His death and resurrection. Here's something to think about. If Allah changed the man on the cross to look like Jesus, then the Apostle's were sent on a false mission because the Jesus they were preaching didn't really die. It seems to me that God would not do something like that. Why would he let sincere men spread a false message and die in vain because he did something that they didn't know about?

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

I think papal infallibility relates more to doctrine then peripheral matters. But I wonder why Clement said the shroud was not Jesus' I guess we don't know why. But I did find this at:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/shroud_of_turin.htm

c.1390
"Antipope Clement VII (r. 1378–94) declared the shroud to be an appropriate object of devotion, so long as it was not regarded as the true shroud. But Julius II and subsequent popes took its authenticity for granted."

This is an interesting cite because it provides a time line for the shroud.



This same cite has the shroud seen well before 1357. Why nothing was mentioned about it before the sixth century is anyone's guess. The shroud is indeed a mytery, especially the image on it. No one knows how it got there. Could it have been put there when he rose from the dead? I don't know.

Peace Slamdunk,

Not trying to avoid discussion about the shroud. But, I just realised this will be a topic of it's own. I think it would be best for that to be in a seperate thread as it can easily become a long discussion by itself.i

I think another strong argument that Jesus was crucified is that most of His Apostles were martyred for spreading the message of His death and resurrection. Here's something to think about. If Allah changed the man on the cross to look like Jesus, then the Apostle's were sent on a false mission because the Jesus they were preaching didn't really die. It seems to me that God would not do something like that. Why would he let sincere men spread a false message and die in vain because he did something that they didn't know about?

We have no doubt that the early apostles were sincere and that they were spreading a true message. We do believe Jesus(as) was given the Injeel and that Jesus(as) and his followers had submitted to the Will of Allah(swt).

However, that which is repeated as being the words of the Apostles does not seem to be accurate. It came after the deaths of the apostles and seems to be flavored strongly with Roman influence. It is most likely that the Apostles did travel and established churches in other parts of the world. Such as Mark went to Alexandria and was the beginning of the Coptic church. We know that the message Mark gave was different than what Rome was spreading, until after strong influence from Rome. Just one example, the Coptics did not accept the trinity, nor the alleged divinity of Jesus(as) until some time after or during the Nicene Council.

Peace

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

[Day] Hello Woodrow. I guess this would be the only logical conclusion from a muslim perspective. IOW, Allah supernaturally changed someone to look like Jesus. As I mentioned before, surely Mary would have known who was on the cross, but if Allah changed the appearance of another person, than she too was would not have known the difference. It's just that, to me, it seems like a scenario that sounds so surreal and inconsistent with the way God does things.

It is not so surreal if the existing accounts as promoted by Paul and Rome are not the true accounts of what Jesus(as) and His apostles had really said.

If what muslims believe happened, from the Christian perspective, it would be devastating to Christianity, which has as its foundational doctrine, the death of Jesus for sin. If he didn't die on that cross, then we are all (including muslims) dead in our sins. Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24). Unless we believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be (Savior and Lord), we have no hope of heaven because our sins cannot be forgiven by someone who died on the cross that was not Jesus. I realize this is doctrine that is not accepted by muslims, but I only say that to show what it would mean if it wasn't Jesus on the cross.

To say that man can only be saved by the Death of Jesus(as) on the cross, places a very strong limitation on an all powerful God(swt).

This also is a statement that Jesus(as) is more powerful than God(swt) as it means God(swt) can not forgive sins.

Allah(swt) needs only to think it and it is done. Allah(swt) is the only judge and only forgiver of sins. He need only think it and a man's sins are forgiven.

Right, just as we say the Bible is the Word of God. I have to believe that before Muhammed was given the Quran, he at least had heard that Jesus was crucified and had risen. Before 600AD, and after, that message was spreading around the world. Many people have believed and many others haven't. Why we choose to believe what we believe is interesting. It certainly makes for diverse points of view. We both realize that our last breath will reveal the truth. So this basically leaves us tugging on a similar oar, only in different boats.

I agree with that

Were you muslim at first, then went to the catholic priesthood and then reverted back to Islam?

We believe that all people are born Muslim. We only get raised in other faiths. So I was born Muslim, but grew up only knowing Catholicism. After a long journey and many side trips I finally reverted to Islam when I was 65 years old. I say reverted because accepting Islam I KNEW and felt I had returned home to what I had when I was first born. It was like a second birth and I was given the chance to live my life over and this time live it as a Muslim.

Peace

Peace