Do only Muslims reject the historical crucifixion?

[MartinJordan]

Jesus said in John, You search the scripture. The only scripture of that time was the Old Testament, which clearly states, God is not a man nor the son of man (numbers 23:19).

The catholic narrative goes against the scripture in
Believing that God became man, to die for our sins.

The orthodox say God became man to conquer human nature, died to conquer sin, and resurrected to conquer death.

TheSufi you need to Stop jettisoning words. Quote the verse in full (and that’s just the tip of the iceberg )

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

This is a game I enjoy playing. A Muslim quotes the Gospel so I quote multiple other things Jesus said that Muslims don’t accept from the same speech. You accept John 5 as truth so perhaps you can interpret this for me:

5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling **God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
**

5:22 Moreover, the** Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.** Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Contrast 5:22 with Psalm 96:13 Let all creation rejoice before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to** judge the earth. He will judge the world **in righteousness and the peoples in his faithfulness.

Wait… So who’s judging the world? The Father or the Son? Or perhaps the Father and the Son are One, and that’s why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Because let’s face it, if Jesus isn’t God then He most certainly was blaspheming by saying all judgement is His.

5:25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

Let’s first start with the irony of this conversation. The entire conversation you’ve been trying (and failing) to prove that God did in fact deceive many people into believing Jesus really was crucified. Let’s look back:

And let’s look at the first half of your quote:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie;

So you’ve quoted a part of the OT and it is used against your theory that God tricked the entire world into believing Jesus really was crucified as shown in your quote. That’s not the part you’re interested in though, you’re interested in the part that says, “God is not a man.”

This passage is showing the qualities that man has and is teaching that God does not share these qualities that men have. God has made a promise and He must follow through with such a promise, that’s what the entire passage is about.

“God is not a Son of Man that He should change His mind” is one translation of the rest of the passage. However the word used here is נָחַם which is “nachem” and means God does not feel sorry about His word. God does not take the quality of a mans son by apologizing for what He has promised and turning His back on it.

I would think that you also believe that God does not share qualities with men or men’s sons in that God could change His mind or feel sorry for His decision. I’m not sure about the lie part though from your point of view, just from our conversation thus far.

The passage concludes: “Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” Saying that God always acts on what He promises. And what did He promise in the Scriptures about the Son of Man to come?

Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one** like a son of man**, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Again, worship, authority, glory, sovereign power, everlasting dominion… All qualities for God, yet even in Daniel, given to the Son of Man.

Brilliant.

Thanks also for keeping the thread on track and focused.

MJ

 

[LtTony]

Insufficient? I don’t know if you’re talking about Christianity in general or just posters here. But please let us know where we have been insifficient, and we will try and do better, if possible.

You could also answer these questions that were asked earlier:
What is “the literal Son of God.” Are you talking about insemination through marital relations or what?

**“2. Jesus’ Gospel that we read to today, there is no assurance that Jesus uttered everything that is recorded in those books. As there are contradiction between those books.” **

Like what?

Misunderstood. Does it say that in the Koran?

Originally Posted by LtTony forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*

What is “the literal Son of God.” Are you talking about insemination through marital relations or what?

**“2. Jesus’ Gospel that we read to today, there is no assurance that Jesus uttered everything that is recorded in those books. As there are contradiction between those books.” ***

Like what?

Misunderstood. Does it say that in the Koran?

Originally Posted by LtTony forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*

What is “the literal Son of God.” Are you talking about insemination through marital relations or what?

**“2. Jesus’ Gospel that we read to today, there is no assurance that Jesus uttered everything that is recorded in those books. As there are contradiction between those books.” ***

Like what?

Misunderstood. Does it say that in the Koran?

Again, I’m curious about the answers to these questions.

 

[Reuben_J]

Seems like a cat and mouse game.

 

[MartinJordan]

Seems like a cat and mouse game.

And Salvation is not a game. I really am disappointed with the way (and Im not p(name removed by moderator)ointing any one in particular) some Muslims who take verses out of the context and don’t even complete the verse.

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

And Salvation is not a game. I really am disappointed with the way (and Im not p(name removed by moderator)ointing any one in particular) some Muslims who take verses out of the context and don’t even complete the verse.

MJ

And that too, MJ.

I was referring to how lucky we are if our questions are answered but many times they are not. You sort of chasing after it but sometimes you may not see even its tail.

 

[MartinJordan]

And that too, MJ.

I was referring to how lucky we are if our questions are answered but many times they are not. You sort of chasing after it but sometimes you may not see even its tail.

Got ya.

MJ

 

[TheSufi]

Again, I’m curious about the answers to these questions.

Literally, like begotten.

Contradiction like what is written above the cross, it can’t be all be true. One of the Gospel writers lied, or couldn’t remember exactly?

 

[Brendan_64]

The general interpretation amongst Muslims is that the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man as we consider it unacceptable that such a revered prophet would suffer such an excruciating fate.

Is it therefore acceptable that some other innocent man suffer such an excruciating fate instead of your prophet? Is that just? Would a just God allow such pain to be inflicted upon an innocent man, just to save a prophet from such physical pain?

 

[TheSufi]

This is a game I enjoy playing. A Muslim quotes the Gospel so I quote multiple other things Jesus said that Muslims don’t accept from the same speech. You accept John 5 as truth so perhaps you can interpret this for me:

5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling **God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
**

5:22 Moreover, the** Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.** Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Contrast 5:22 with Psalm 96:13 Let all creation rejoice before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to** judge the earth. He will judge the world **in righteousness and the peoples in his faithfulness.

Wait… So who’s judging the world? The Father or the Son? Or perhaps the Father and the Son are One, and that’s why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Because let’s face it, if Jesus isn’t God then He most certainly was blaspheming by saying all judgement is His.

5:25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

The Gospel is comprised of some truth and some falsehood. I only try to quote what is truthful.

Let’s first start with the irony of this conversation. The entire conversation you’ve been trying (and failing) to prove that God did in fact deceive many people into believing Jesus really was crucified. Let’s look back:

And let’s look at the first half of your quote:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie;

So you’ve quoted a part of the OT and it is used against your theory that God tricked the entire world into believing Jesus really was crucified as shown in your quote. That’s not the part you’re interested in though, you’re interested in the part that says, “God is not a man.”

In order for that verse to apply, there would have to be an authentic verse where God said, “Jesus died on the cross.” Since God never said, Jesus died on the cross, God never lied.

This passage is showing the qualities that man has and is teaching that God does not share these qualities that men have. God has made a promise and He must follow through with such a promise, that’s what the entire passage is about.

“God is not a Son of Man that He should change His mind” is one translation of the rest of the passage. However the word used here is נָחַם which is “nachem” and means God does not feel sorry about His word. God does not take the quality of a mans son by apologizing for what He has promised and turning His back on it.

I would think that you also believe that God does not share qualities with men or men’s sons in that God could change His mind or feel sorry for His decision. I’m not sure about the lie part though from your point of view, just from our conversation thus far.

A Summary of my understanding:

God does not lie, nor go back on His word, because He is not a man, nor the son of man.
My understanding is more obvious.

Your explanation of that verse is deficient, because it goes against what is obvious.

 

[TheSufi]

Is it therefore acceptable that some other innocent man suffer such an excruciating fate instead of your prophet? Is that just? Would a just God allow such pain to be inflicted upon an innocent man, just to save a prophet from such physical pain?

For me, by default, God wouldn’t do anything that would be unjust. Thus the understanding I would have is the person that was crucified in Jesus’ place was not innocent. I believe that the Quran is the word of God.

You would have to prove to me that the man that was crucified in Jesus’ place was innocent.

Where in the Quran does it say, that God replaced Jesus with an “**innocent **” man?

 

[Reuben_J]

Idaith:

The general interpretation amongst Muslims is that the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man as we consider it unacceptable that such a revered prophet would suffer such an excruciating fate.

There are many interpretations of what actually happened at the crucifixion by Muslims but they are all speculations since the Quran is silent on it. Some said it was Judas, some said at the supposed moment of death of Jesus, he was picked up by Allah, and so on. Of course all of these do not make sense because of the fact that it left an impression behind that Jesus was crucified and Christian belief was established because of this.

Quran 4:157 emphasis is on Jesus being rescued by Allah (raised him up unto Himself) and those who differ from this are in doubt, meaning they have been deceived.

There is no evidence that ‘they’ boasted in killing Jesus too as said by the verse.

If a revered prophet should not ‘suffer such an excruciating fate’, then why did not Allah rescue Jesus from being arrested or even at the agony in Gethsemane where Jesus already suffered excruciating pain (mentally and physically)?

The suffering and humiliation of Jesus can be divided into four parts:

1. The agony at Gethsemane.
Jesus was in great distress, ‘My soul is sorrowful to the point of death’; ‘If possible, let this cup pass me by’.

2. Jesus was scourged
Pilate ordered Jesus to be first scourged and then handed over to be crucified.

3. Jesus carried the cross
Carrying the wooden cross, Jesus already wounded and in pain from the torture, fell several times, that he could not carry it any longer.

4. Jesus was crucified
*When they reached the place called the Skull (Golgotha), they crucified him there and the two criminals also, one on the right, the other on the left.
‘Father into your hands I commit my spirit’. With these words he breathed his last.
Joseph of Arimethaia went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. He took it down, wrapped it in a shroud and put him in a tomb. *

It is strange that Allah should rescue Jesus only at the point of death on the cross (crucifixion) but not at the earlier stages where the suffering was even greater. Death is perhaps the least of all pain compared to the physical and mental pain that Jesus endured.

So the general interpretation by Muslims as mentioned is moot but more merely to justify Quran 4:157.

 

[Brendan_64]

For me, by default, God wouldn’t do anything that would be unjust. Thus the understanding I would have is the person that was crucified in Jesus’ place was not innocent. I believe that the Quran is the word of God.

You would have to prove to me that the man that was crucified in Jesus’ place was innocent.

Where in the Quran does it say, that God replaced Jesus with an “**innocent **” man?

You say that the man who died on the cross was not innocent. If he wasn’t innocent, then he must be guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of the crimes charged against him for which he was executed? How can that be if it was for the actions of Jesus that he was executed for?

No matter how good, or bad that supposed man might have been, if he was executed for something that he didn’t do, then he was indeed guilty, and that would certainly have been an injustice.

If you believe that God replaced Jesus with another man, in order that that man was executed for the things that Jesus had been charged with, then you must believe that God carried out an injustice.

 

[TheSufi]

You say that the man who died on the cross was not innocent. If he wasn’t innocent, then he must be guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of the crimes charged against him for which he was executed? How can that be if it was for the actions of Jesus that he was executed for?

No matter how good, or bad that supposed man might have been, if he was executed for something that he didn’t do, then he was indeed guilty, and that would certainly have been an injustice.

If you believe that God replaced Jesus with another man, in order that that man was executed for the things that Jesus had been charged with, then you must believe that God carried out an injustice.

The particulars are NOT important. God is just God. I don’t know the why or how of many things that God does, but I know He is just.

Why does God allow bad things to happen, why does allow God evil to exist, why does God allow evil men to oppress good people, religious people of all religions? Why does God allow a baby to die of a good Christian family who attends church every Sunday, fast lent, and attend vespers? Why does God allow a baby to die of a good muslim family who attends the Masjid every Friday and prays 5 times a day? These are some of the questions Atheist ask, leaving religion without satisfactory answers, and deny God because these questions are not sufficiently answered by religious people such as ourselves.

I don’t know all the particulars nor all whys of every event, but I know God is Just.
God is Merciful. God is Just even if it appears unjust to us. God knows all things, all views, all perspective. God sees what we do not.

Plus, on the last day, God will not be questioned because of what He did, but you will be questioned because of what you did…

 

[Brendan_64]

The particulars are NOT important. God is just God. I don’t know the why or how of many things that God does, but I know He is just…

Now that’s really convenient. In one post you say that the man executed in place of Jesus was not innocent, because God would not do something unjust, and you ask me to prove that this man was innocent. I then point out that if he was executed for things he did not do (and this had to be the case if he was executed for things Jesus was accused of doing) then he was by definition innocent, then you turn round and say that “The particulars are NOT important”. How very convenient. I’d say that’s 1-0 to me on that point.

Why does God allow bad things to happen

Because he has given us the gift of free-will. We are not God’s slaves, nor does he want us to be. We have free-will, we are free to act, for good, or for evil.

why does allow God allow evil to exist, why does God allow evil men to oppress God people?

Free-will. We have to be able to choose how to act.

Why does God allow a baby to die of a good Christian family who attends church every Sunday, fast lent, and attend vespers? Why does God allow a baby to die of a good muslim family who attends the Masjid every Friday and prays 5 times a day?

Why should an individual child from a devout family be immune from death in the way that a child from another family will not be? The children are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. God does not reward devout families here on Earth.

I don’t know all the particulars nor all whys of every event, but I know God is Just.
God is Merciful.

That is not a defence of your belief that God caused another to die in the place of Jesus. That doesn’t answer how you can believe that this man must have been guilty of the crimes Jesus was accused of.

 

[TheSufi]

Now that’s really convenient. In one post you say that the man executed in place of Jesus was not innocent, because God would not do something unjust, and you ask me to prove that this man was innocent. I then point out that if he was executed for things he did not do (and this had to be the case if he was executed for things Jesus was accused of doing) then he was by definition innocent, then you turn round and say that “The particulars are NOT important”. How very convenient. I’d say that’s 1-0 to me on that point.
.

But you didn’t prove he was innocent.

 

[Brendan_64]

But you didn’t prove he was innocent.

Yes I did.

A man was executed for the crimes that someone else is accused of committing **HAS TO BE **innocent of those crimes. How could he be guilty of the crimes Jesus was accused of?

If he was guilty of such crimes then he would have to have committed them. Not just guilty of similar crimes, but those of exact crimes. How could he be guilty of committing the crimes that someone else (i.e. Jesus) was accused of. The only person that could have been guilty of those crimes was Jesus (who was innocent).

Whoever was executed on the cross, either Jesus, or someone in his place, had to be innocent.

 

[LtTony]

Literally, like begotten.

Contradiction like what is written above the cross, it can’t be all be true. One of the Gospel writers lied, or couldn’t remember exactly?

Thanks. You don’t believe God beget His Son. I believe a child began to grow in Mary through a miracle. I’m unclear on the rest of your response. Could you rephrase and elaborate a bit please?

 

[TheSufi]

Yes I did.

A man was executed for the crimes that someone else is accused of committing **HAS TO BE **innocent of those crimes. How could he be guilty of the crimes Jesus was accused of?

If he was guilty of such crimes then he would have to have committed them. Not just guilty of similar crimes, but those of exact crimes. How could he be guilty of committing the crimes that someone else (i.e. Jesus) was accused of. The only person that could have been guilty of those crimes was Jesus (who was innocent).

Whoever was executed on the cross, either Jesus, or someone in his place, had to be innocent.

Not really, because a person can be crucified for various crimes.

In other words, it isn’t necessary that the man replaced be accused of the same crime, but his punishment be equal to the crime he committed.

 

[TheSufi]

Thanks. You don’t believe God beget His Son. I believe a child began to grow in Mary through a miracle. I’m unclear on the rest of your response. Could you rephrase and elaborate a bit please?

The wording above the cross, differs between Gospels. They cannot be all correct.