Do only Muslims reject the historical crucifixion?

[LtTony]

Well, lets just throw out a scenario.

Pilot seams to have a very sympathetic view of Jesus. He tries very hard to save Jesus even offering a mass murderer as an alternative for crucifiction. Pilots only goal was to prevent a Jewish revolt against Roman rule, his qualm was not with Jesus. So lets say to save a richeous man Pilot offers Jesus the option of a replacement. One of Jesus’s followers is approached in seceret and agrees to die in the messiahs place. Understandable as the Jewish understanding of the Messiah is that he is a warrior king and its hard to liberate Isreal if your dead. The to disguise the follower (chosen for his devotion and similar appearance) is beaten and whipped untill he is unrecognizeable. The next day he impersonates Jesus to save his life and then Jesus returns “resurrected”. When the Romans and Jews start looking for him Jesus leaves but promises to return and defeat evil.

Not saying its true but its possible.

Possible but unlikely, imo. It is pretty much the scenario I envisioned when you brought it up. I think the people that knew Jesus well would have to be in on it. Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me. It may be plausible to you, but not to me.

 

[LtTony]

We don’t know everything that he knew or said. Just like we don’t know everything that Jesus knew, or said.

On the contrary Jesus continues to speak to us through the Holy Spirit that guides and protects the Church.

MJ

We don’t need to know everything Jesus said or did. He revealed everything we needed to know to achieve salvation; He said so Himself. (Heck, we don’t know a thing about the years between His childhood and the beginning of His ministry.) Christ also said the Holy Spirit would explain and elbaorate on what we needed to know of what Christ said.

The point is this: “*We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One” *(29:46 AYA)."
"*We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein *IS guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. S. 5:46-47 Pickthall

Yet Mohammad didn’t know Christ or anyone who knew Our Saviour; the Muslim prophet came 600 years after Christ and the earliest Christian scriptures. Islam insists Scripture is corrupted; yet doesn’t provide the Injeel. Yet at the same time, Muslims often criticize Paul for having never met Jesdus.

That was the point.

 

[MartinJordan]

Prophet Muhammad did not instruct Muslim to read the bible, nor is our based on what is in the bible. But there is nothing wrong with reading it, if one has a sound grounding the Islam. I like much of what I read from Jesus, in fact much of it is insightful. I just don’t necessarily agree with all Christian commentary regarding his words.

I would strongly suggest you read Church history. The Bible (especially the New Testament) explains what was experienced by the people who lived in the midst of Jesus first hand and were affected and were inspired to write the events. Also these Christians lived their lives praising God and even suffered and died for the Faith, before the Bible was even put together!

Plus I know it’s hard to agree being brought up in a different Faith. Even Christians don’t agree with each other, everything that Jesus said! Hence the thousands of denominations

Therefore, the Church tradition and history is integral to us Catholics. You may be surprised but we Catholics ourselves must be wary of trying to understand the Bible using our own understanding.

Hope this made some sort of sense The Sufi

MJ

 

[TheSufi]

We don’t need to know everything Jesus said or did. He revealed everything we needed to know to achieve salvation; He said so Himself. (Heck, we don’t know a thing about the years between His childhood and the beginning of His ministry.) Christ also said the Holy Spirit would explain and elbaorate on what we needed to know of what Christ said.

The point is this: “*We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One” *(29:46 AYA)."
"*We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein **IS *guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. S. 5:46-47 Pickthall

Yet Mohammad didn’t know Christ or anyone who knew Our Saviour; the Muslim prophet came 600 years after Christ and the earliest Christian scriptures. Islam insists Scripture is corrupted; yet doesn’t provide the Injeel. Yet at the same time, Muslims often criticize Paul for having never met Jesdus.

That was the point.

We believe Prophet Muhammad knew Jesus and and major prophets, the Angel Gabriel and the Angel Michael, came to the Prophet Muhammad, and purified his heart and took him up to the heavens, where he met Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, John the Baptist, Joseph and many others. Prophet Muhammad knew Jesus.

We as Muslims also have access to the heavens, Shaykh Abu Hasan ash Shadhili said, “In the beginning (my teacher) was Ibn Mashih. At the present I draw from ten seas, five of the sons of Adam, and five of spiritual origins. The sons of Adam are, our master Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The five of spiritual origins are the Angel Gabriel, the Angel Michael, the Angel Israfil, the Angel Izrail and the Spirit (ie the Holy Spirit).”

Islam is not just a physical and intellectual religion, it is a highly spiritual religion as well. And we have access to the spiritual as well, if you are willing to under go spiritual training. The Quran say, “Have God consciousness and God will teach you.” Prophet Muhammad said, “I only distribute (ie reveal the Quran), it is God who gives understanding.”

Prophet Muhammad is a prophet from God, so he brought us a new revelation from God, the Quran. Thus there isn’t a need to provide the original Gospel. I think part of the reason why God revealed a new revelation, and never insisted Muslims to study the old books, is the language of the old books can be confusing, calling men, Son of God, God (Elohim), etc, which lead to the error of the Christians believe that Jesus was God.

Salvation can be attained without the old scriptures, by what is revealed in the Quran. And we have the original, Quran. While you do not have the original Gospel, as Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. You have a translation of the words of Jesus, who content is questionable, we are unsure if it is authentic or not. There aren’t any early dictionaries of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. The Muslims were actually the first people who have scientific dictionaries. Even Christian scholars disagree on the author of the Gospel.

One of the miracles of Islam, perhaps due to the past failings of Christianity and Judaism, is that it is the most preserved religion. God ensured that his last revelation would be preserved in the exact way it was revealed, in Arabic. We have extensive dictionaries, we know the grammar, rhetoric, morphology, syntax, pronounciation of the Arabic of Prophet Muhammad’s time, as well as the meanings of those words, which is now known as Arabic Fusha (Classical Arabic). These things change with time. The Arabic of Modern day, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is different from classical Arabic. The pronunciation, meanings of words, grammar is slightly different from classical Arabic.

Modern Greek is different then New Testament Greek. Scholar debate about the meanings of word in the Greek language, even its pronunciation. The Greek New Testament is actually a translation of Jesus’ Aramaic and anyone who knows anything about translations, meanings are lost in translation. Also the language you speak, has an affect on what you understand. I remember listening to a lecture by an Orthodox Priest and he was explaining how Syriac Orthodox priest, have a slight different understanding of the Holy Spirit, due to their language, it is not a big difference, but it is a slight difference.

You probaably read the New Testament in English, and you have a general understanding of it, your understanding of it will slightly change if when you learn Greek and are able to read it in Greek. And if you were to study Hebrew, and the Old Testament, your understanding of it will slightly change. And there is a Greek Old Testament as well. Look at the translations of the Greek old testament and compare it with the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. You will know the writers of the New Testament, relied heavily on the Greek Old Testament, when providing quotes.

When Hebrew died out, what did the Jews turn to, the Arabic language, because it is the most preserved Semitic language. Why did they turn to Arabic language, because of Arabic morphology.

In short, we don’t need to the read the bible for our salvation. The Quran is enough.

 

[TheSufi]

I would strongly suggest you read Church history. The Bible (especially the New Testament) explains what was experienced by the people who lived in the midst of Jesus first hand and were affected and were inspired to write the events. Also these Christians lived their lives praising God and even suffered and died for the Faith, before the Bible was even put together!

Plus I know it’s hard to agree being brought up in a different Faith. Even Christians don’t agree with each other, everything that Jesus said! Hence the thousands of denominations

Therefore, the Church tradition and history is integral to us Catholics. You may be surprised but we Catholics ourselves must be wary of trying to understand the Bible using our own understanding.

Hope this made some sort of sense The Sufi

MJ

I actually studied Christianity, a little bit, I took a catechumen course through the Orthodox Church.

 

[LtTony]

We believe Prophet Muhammad knew Jesus and and major prophets, the Angel Gabriel and the Angel Michael, came to the Prophet Muhammad, and purified his heart and took him up to the heavens, where he met Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, John the Baptist, Joseph and many others. Prophet Muhammad knew Jesus.

We as Muslims also have access to the heavens, Shaykh Abu Hasan ash Shadhili said, “In the beginning (my teacher) was Ibn Mashih. At the present I draw from ten seas, five of the sons of Adam, and five of spiritual origins. The sons of Adam are, our master Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The five of spiritual origins are the Angel Gabriel, the Angel Michael, the Angel Israfil, the Angel Izrail and the Spirit (ie the Holy Spirit).”

… One of the miracles of Islam, perhaps due to the past failings of Christianity and Judaism, is that it is the most preserved religion. God ensured that his last revelation would be preserved in the exact way it was revealed, in Arabic. We have extensive dictionaries, we know the grammar, rhetoric, morphology, syntax, pronounciation of the Arabic of Prophet Muhammad’s time, as well as the meanings of those words, which is now known as Arabic Fusha (Classical Arabic). These things change with time. The Arabic of Modern day, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is different from classical Arabic. The pronunciation, meanings of words, grammar is slightly different from classical Arabic.

Modern Greek is different then New Testament Greek…

You probaably read the New Testament in English, and you have a general understanding of it, your understanding of it will slightly change if when you learn Greek and are able to read it in Greek. And if you were to study Hebrew, and the Old Testament, your understanding of it will slightly change. And there is a Greek Old Testament as well. Look at the translations of the Greek old testament and compare it with the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. You will know the writers of the New Testament, relied heavily on the Greek Old Testament, when providing quotes.

When Hebrew died out, what did the Jews turn to, the Arabic language, because it is the most preserved Semitic language. Why did they turn to Arabic language, because of Arabic morphology.

In short, we don’t need to the read the bible for our salvation. The Quran is enough.

I accept and understand that is what you believe. My point was that Paul met Jesus under circumstances similar to Mohammad, yet many Muslims criticize Paul for NOT meeting Christ. You may have not said this; it was a general observation. But my comment was that this is hypocritical.

We apparently disagree on the original language thing. I am unaware of Christian or Muslim scriptures stating they must be read in their native languages to be properly understood. Further, it is illogical that God would expect each an every believer to be basically an expert in Greek or Aramaic or Arabic or whatever to fully understand His word.
Further, I think you are giving the potential mis-translation of Greek and classical Arabic waaay too much credit. I’ve had Muslims tell me that classic Arabic is much different than Athe language today, and not all nuances are properly understood by other Muslims. I’d be interested in a translation (Greek or Arabic) thread if someone wanted to start one.

 

[Tor_Hershman]

I too reject the hisTORical crucifixion.

 

[MartinJordan]

I actually studied Christianity, a little bit, I took a catechumen course through the Orthodox Church.

Great. Why did you stop? What propelled you to decide you had enough knowledge about it?

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

**In short, we don’t need to the read the bible for our salvation. **

We also don’t need to read the Bible for our Salvation. However, it is a very good guide because it’s God’s Word but not to rely on our own understanding when we have trouble making sense of some hard sayings in it. We need The Church to explain it because the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

The Quran is enough

So, this means you are a Quran only Muslim?

MJ

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Islam is not just a physical and intellectual religion, it is a highly spiritual religion as well. And we have access to the spiritual as well, if you are willing to under go spiritual training. The Quran say, “Have God consciousness and God will teach you.” Prophet Muhammad said, “I only distribute (ie reveal the Quran), it is God who gives understanding.”

Prophet Muhammad is a prophet from God, so he brought us a new revelation from God, the Quran. Thus there isn’t a need to provide the original Gospel. I think part of the reason why God revealed a new revelation, and never insisted Muslims to study the old books, is the language of the old books can be confusing, calling men, Son of God, God (Elohim), etc, which lead to the error of the Christians believe that Jesus was God.

Salvation can be attained without the old scriptures, by what is revealed in the Quran. And we have the original, Quran. While you do not have the original Gospel, as Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. You have a translation of the words of Jesus, who content is questionable, we are unsure if it is authentic or not. There aren’t any early dictionaries of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. The Muslims were actually the first people who have scientific dictionaries. Even Christian scholars disagree on the author of the Gospel.

One of the miracles of Islam, perhaps due to the past failings of Christianity and Judaism, is that it is the most preserved religion. God ensured that his last revelation would be preserved in the exact way it was revealed, in Arabic. We have extensive dictionaries, we know the grammar, rhetoric, morphology, syntax, pronounciation of the Arabic of Prophet Muhammad’s time, as well as the meanings of those words, which is now known as Arabic Fusha (Classical Arabic). These things change with time. The Arabic of Modern day, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is different from classical Arabic. The pronunciation, meanings of words, grammar is slightly different from classical Arabic.

Modern Greek is different then New Testament Greek. Scholar debate about the meanings of word in the Greek language, even its pronunciation. The Greek New Testament is actually a translation of Jesus’ Aramaic and anyone who knows anything about translations, meanings are lost in translation. Also the language you speak, has an affect on what you understand. I remember listening to a lecture by an Orthodox Priest and he was explaining how Syriac Orthodox priest, have a slight different understanding of the Holy Spirit, due to their language, it is not a big difference, but it is a slight difference.

You probaably read the New Testament in English, and you have a general understanding of it, your understanding of it will slightly change if when you learn Greek and are able to read it in Greek. And if you were to study Hebrew, and the Old Testament, your understanding of it will slightly change. And there is a Greek Old Testament as well. Look at the translations of the Greek old testament and compare it with the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. You will know the writers of the New Testament, relied heavily on the Greek Old Testament, when providing quotes.

When Hebrew died out, what did the Jews turn to, the Arabic language, because it is the most preserved Semitic language. Why did they turn to Arabic language, because of Arabic morphology.

In short, we don’t need to the read the bible for our salvation. The Quran is enough.

Which “Christian scholars” scholars dissagree? Muslims love to say that “even Christian scholars” skeptical as to the bible but what they usually mean by this is atheistic or liberal scholars who study Christianity be it Bart Erhman or whatever. A Christian scholar is someone who is a Christian and who is an academic, so that being said is there any you can name here that say none of the evangelists wrote what the church has universally said they wrote from the begining?

Its odd the point this out now but the gospels authorship was never really in dispute in the ancient church and there was as far as I can tell a universal tradition as to the authorship of who wrote what. No one for instance thought PEter wrote Mathew, or John wrote Mark and etc. This is hardly the sort of thing we should expect from works if truely anonymous and their authorship cannot be known. We might expect different claims, different traditions, but that simply didn’t happen.

Now as for the greek understanding of the gospel, what are you trying to say? that if we read the gospel in greek we will come to an islamic understanding? Even in greek there has been different understandings of the bible and this is visible from history, so language really isn’t the problem considering the resources we have we can be sure as to general translations and their worthiness. The Major church which is greek continues to profess Christian doctrine and has always read the New testament and old testament in its language, thats the orthodox church as have the educated in churches in other parts of the world inlcuding specifically the west.

But since you say Christianity has failed to preserve itself, what do you do about the quran promising the remnant of the followers of Jesus whom are jews that they would be victorius to teh day of ressurection? Where were the true Christians between 33 AD - 570 AD?

 

[LtTony]

Ninety persent of the time they are speaking of Ehrman. Even if Erhman is unconvential, he often doesn’t support what Muslims claim he says (otherwise he’s be Muslim). They misunderstand some of his stuff and cherry pick others out of context.

" Its odd the point this out now but the gospels authorship was never really in dispute in the ancient church and there was as far as I can tell a universal tradition as to the authorship of who wrote what. No one for instance thought PEter wrote Mathew, or John wrote Mark and etc. This is hardly the sort of thing we should expect from works if truely anonymous and their authorship cannot be known. We might expect different claims, different traditions, but that simply didn’t happen. "

Can you re-phrase this please? I’m not sure I understand.

 

[TheSufi]

I accept and understand that is what you believe. My point was that Paul met Jesus under circumstances similar to Mohammad, yet many Muslims criticize Paul for NOT meeting Christ. You may have not said this; it was a general observation. But my comment was that this is hypocritical.

In Islam, Paul’s spiritual experience doesn’t carry the weight of a Prophet, because we do not consider him a prophet. The spiritual experience of a common man, as oppose to a Prophet, has the potential of being incorrect.

Within Islam Paul would have the status of what we would call a tabieen, a student of the companions (disciples) of a Prophet, because he did not physically meet Jesus. In our eyes Paul would be equivalent to the likes of Polycarp, The student of John, the disciple of Christ. While it is a high status, it would not render his writings at the level of scripture, which is the status Christians give Paul’s writings.

So I wouldn’t say that we are hypocritical but rather we have a different standard then Christians.

We apparently disagree on the original language thing. I am unaware of Christian or Muslim scriptures stating they must be read in their native languages to be properly understood. Further, it is illogical that God would expect each an every believer to be basically an expert in Greek or Aramaic or Arabic or whatever to fully understand His word.
Further, I think you are giving the potential mis-translation of Greek and classical Arabic waaay too much credit. I’ve had Muslims tell me that classic Arabic is much different than Athe language today, and not all nuances are properly understood by other Muslims. I’d be interested in a translation (Greek or Arabic) thread if someone wanted to start one.

Knowing the original language is important for scholarly explanation, and it does have an affect on commentary, how one understand what was originally said. Many times anti-Islamic people argue against Muslims using translation thinking they have something against the Muslims, yet their ignorant gets the best of them.

Maybe because translations don’t have an negative effect on you, but it sure has a negative on Muslims.

 

[LtTony]

In Islam, Paul’s spiritual experience doesn’t carry the weight of a Prophet, because we do not consider him a prophet. The spiritual experience of a common man, as oppose to a Prophet, has the potential of being incorrect.

Within Islam Paul would have the status of what we would call a tabieen, a student of the companions (disciples) of a Prophet, because he did not physically meet Jesus. In our eyes Paul would be equivalent to the likes of Polycarp, The student of John, the disciple of Christ. While it is a high status, it would not render his writings at the level of scripture, which is the status Christians give Paul’s writings.

So I wouldn’t say that we are hypocritical but rather we have a different standard then Christians.

Paul is known as an “Early Church Father.” He had a supernatural, miraculous life event where he met the resurrected Christ. He was an important and close companion of the Apostles, particularly Peter. He established several influencial Christian communities, among the earliest evangelists. You’ve heard of “Pauline Christianity”, which is often criticized by Muslims.
Paul wasn’t a prophet but he is called a “Saint”. His writings are included in the Bible, which contains scripture written by prophets and non-prophets. As you know, the Bible is considered the inspired word of God.
So comparing him to a tabieen doesn’t do him justice. He nor any other Christian was not as influencial in his religion as Mohammad, however.
What Muslims think of Paul is irrelevant to Christians. He is a very important figure, as you said yourself. You can’t minimize the criticism and the hypocrisy behind it. Your line of reasoning makes no sense.

Knowing the original language is important for scholarly explanation, and it does have an affect on commentary, how one understand what was originally said.

Yes, and that is why scholars translate the Bible. Your line of reasoning is again flawed, at least from the Christian perspective.

 

[Mastiff_Eng]

There false religion is not of God, therefore who cares what they accept and reject?

Why does everyone here give so much credence to that religion?

 

[SteveVH]

It’s not rediculous at all. There are plenty of stories about car crashes, burn victims, and others whom thier families could not recognize. It’s not at all rediculous, it’s totally feisable.

Okay, Skadi. Good luck with that.

 

[Skadi]

Okay, Skadi. Good luck with that.

I’m not saying it did happen, but your statements just show you will look to deny things proven possible to try and eliminate possibilities you don’t believe happened.

You believe in the reserection, you have faith, good for you. But people HAVE been beaten to the point they are unrecognizeable.

 

[Reuben_J]

Knowing the original language is important for scholarly explanation, and it does have an affect on commentary, how one understand what was originally said. Many times anti-Islamic people argue against Muslims using translation thinking they have something against the Muslims, yet their ignorant gets the best of them.

Maybe because translations don’t have an negative effect on you, but it sure has a negative on Muslims.

Exactly. How does we know the meaning of the original language? It certainly is from what the original speakers understood them. Thus that meaning must be preserved for all time. The meaning of the word of language changes, and so would be the message if it is not preserved.

The Arabic of the Quran is far different from the Arabic spoken today and so does the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic of the written Bible. If the Book of the Quran in the seventh century is to be found today, say in an archeological finding, and Islam was lost and not practiced (hypothetically) all these while, a translator of the Quran today would definitely translate the message of the Quran differently, simply because the language has changed and the meaning then may not be the same as what it is today.

The only reason that the message of the Quran is the same today as it was before is because of the continuous preservation of the teaching from the beginning which is not entirely depend on the words in the Quran alone in isolation as explained.

So what makes you think it is difference with regards to the Bible? Without translation and updating, the original words of the Bible can be unrecognizable today and may give different meaning altogether. For example, gay is not always as understood as even about thirty years ago.

We have the original text of the Bible and that text is preserved as reference but without the ongoing translation, the original meaning is lost, simply because language changes.

Muslims claim that the scripture must be in the original for it to be understood therefore is moot. The meaning of the words in the scripture must be preserved which is to say, the translation must be updated according to the usage of the language of the day.

 

[dronald]

I assumed this thread disappeared. I often take a look at “most recent posts” and never see the ones I create and then all of a sudden it’s 4 pages long in debate.

Anyways, the discussion is about whether or not Muslims deny the historical crucifixion. I’m not asking if Muslims deny the crucifixion, we already know the answer to that. What I’m saying is that it’s agreed among almost all scholars (Christian or not) that if Jesus existed then He most certainly was crucified.

I wonder why Muslims reject what has been excepted as fact by almost all scholars.

 

[MartinJordan]

I assumed this thread disappeared. I often take a look at “most recent posts” and never see the ones I create and then all of a sudden it’s 4 pages long in debate.

Anyways, the discussion is about whether or not Muslims deny the historical crucifixion. I’m not asking if Muslims deny the crucifixion, we already know the answer to that. What I’m saying is that it’s agreed among almost all scholars (Christian or not) that if Jesus existed then He most certainly was crucified.

I wonder why Muslims reject what has been excepted as fact by almost all scholars.

Blind faith?

Seriously, my Muslim friend of 30 years, yes that’s right 30 years, says that when he was asked by an Atheist why he believes in God, my friend said “Blind faith” uch:

MJ

 

[TheSufi]

Paul is known as an “Early Church Father.” He had a supernatural, miraculous life event where he met the resurrected Christ. He was an important and close companion of the Apostles, particularly Peter. He established several influencial Christian communities, among the earliest evangelists. You’ve heard of “Pauline Christianity”, which is often criticized by Muslims.
Paul wasn’t a prophet but he is called a “Saint”. His writings are included in the Bible, which contains scripture written by prophets and non-prophets. As you know, the Bible is considered the inspired word of God.
So comparing him to a tabieen doesn’t do him justice. He nor any other Christian was not as influencial in his religion as Mohammad, however.
What Muslims think of Paul is irrelevant to Christians. He is a very important figure, as you said yourself. You can’t minimize the criticism and the hypocrisy behind it. Your line of reasoning makes no sense.

.

At the end of the day, I don’t view Catholic/Orthodox Christianity as the intended message of Jesus. And you don’t see Prophet Muhammad as a prophet of God. This is the source of our difference.

And to debate about these particulars is a waste of time.