Is there historical error in the Koran?

[freesoulhope]

It has occured to me that one major difference bettween Christianity and Islam, is history. I’m refering to the death and resurrection of Christ. There are some independent and (as far as i know) Jewish resources, which speak of Christ being crucified.
It has dawned on me that if the Koran is teaching error concerning Christs death and resurrection, then it follows as a result, that the Koran cannot be a trustworthy source of revelation. Of course, this alone does not prove that Christianity is a true religion(Judaism is still an option), but it does bring Islam and Muhammad in to question.

I’d like to know what a follower of Islam would have to say about this; and i would also like to know what Judaists have to say about the koran, on the matter of Christs crucifiction.

Peace.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

It has occured to me that one major difference bettween Christianity and Islam, is history. I’m refering to the death and resurrection of Christ. There are some independent and (as far as i know) Jewish resources, which speak of Christ being crucified.
It has dawned on me that if the Koran is teaching error concerning Christs death and resurrection, then it follows as a result, that the Koran cannot be a trustworthy source of revelation. Of course, this alone does not prove that Christianity is a true religion(Judaism is still an option), but it does bring Islam and Muhammad in to question.

I’d like to know what a follower of Islam would have to say about this; and i would also like to know what Judaists have to say about the koran, on the matter of Christs crucifiction.

Peace.

The Quran is correct and so is the NT. Jesus was nailed to the cross, but God took his life, the cross didn’t. So he wasn’t crucified in the sense of an execution that Jews and Romans killed him with.

 

[freesoulhope]

The Quran is correct and so is the NT. Jesus was nailed to the cross, but God took his life, the cross didn’t. So he wasn’t crucified in the sense of an execution that Jews and Romans killed him with.

The Quran teaches that Jesus was Crucified?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The Quran teaches that Jesus was Crucified?

No, because crucifixion is the Roman execution. It says that he was not crucified, but God ended his life. Therefore Jesus was not stopped by men per Isaiah 42:4 and his bones didn’t need to be broken to kill him, fulfilling that prophecy too.

 

[inJESUS]

No, because crucifixion is the Roman execution. It says that he was not crucified, but God ended his life. Therefore Jesus was not stopped by men per Isaiah 42:4 and his bones didn’t need to be broken to kill him, fulfilling that prophecy too.

you mean He did not die **because **of crucifixion, rather than He wasn’t put on the cross…in other words, He was put on the cross but did not die because of it…thats what i understood from your posts…just to clear things for the OP.

 

[rpp]

The Quran is correct and so is the NT. Jesus was nailed to the cross, but God took his life, the cross didn’t. So he wasn’t crucified in the sense of an execution that Jews and Romans killed him with.

That is rather odd way to put it. It could be argued that God takes everyone’s life. I think this is a distinction without a difference. However it is clear in Scripture that Christ was killed by means of Crucifixion.

The Quran teaches the Gnostic belief that it was not Christ who was killed on the Cross, but that God simply fooled people into believing that Christ died. Moslems claim that Christ then fled East and some speculate He ended up in the area of modern day Afghanistan.

So the Quran is at odds with the Bible as well as the contemporary Jewish and Roman historical sources.

 

[freesoulhope]

you mean He did not die **because **of crucifixion, rather than He wasn’t put on the cross…in other words, He was put on the cross but did not die because of it…thats what i understood from your posts…just to clear things for the OP.

This is not what i qeustion. What i am asking is, assuming that Islam do no believe in the crucifixtion; then how do they explain the indepedent Historical sources and the theories of judaism, such as the claim that the apostles stole the body? Why would they make something like that up? Would it not be the case that if history shows that Jesus was crucified, that this revelation would undermine the revelotory value of the Koran?

 

[rpp]

This is not what i qeustion. What i am asking is, assuming that Islam do no believe in the crucifixtion; then how do they explain the indepedent Historical sources and the theories of judaism, such as the claim that the apostles stole the body? Why would they make something like that up? Would it not be the case that if history shows that Jesus was crucified, that this revelation would undermine the revelotory value of the Koran?

In Islamic theology, it is not necessary to reconcile historical or scientific fact with the faith. That is a major difference with Christianity. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Christians and Muslims have such difficulty. A Moslem can divorce what he observes with what he believes. It is this schizophrenic view of the universe which allows the violence we see in Islam today. As well as a splintering of that religion that would even make Martin Luther envious.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

That is rather odd way to put it. It could be argued that God takes everyone’s life. I think this is a distinction without a difference. However it is clear in Scripture that Christ was killed by means of Crucifixion.

The Quran teaches the Gnostic belief that it was not Christ who was killed on the Cross, but that God simply fooled people into believing that Christ died. Moslems claim that Christ then fled East and some speculate He ended up in the area of modern day Afghanistan.

So the Quran is at odds with the Bible as well as the contemporary Jewish and Roman historical sources.

No the Quran doesn’t say that. Apocrypha says it and most Muslims buy that apocrypha, I don’t.

The difference is between having your spirit forced out because your body is killed by men, as opposed to God taking your spirit and leaving your body empty.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

you mean He did not die **because **of crucifixion, rather than He wasn’t put on the cross…in other words, He was put on the cross but did not die because of it…thats what i understood from your posts…just to clear things for the OP.

Right, he was on the cross. Like, if you strangle someone and he dies it may look like he was suffocated.

Even though it may be God took his spirit before he was suffocated, leaving his body empty.

 

[paarsurrey]

It has occured to me that one major difference bettween Christianity and Islam, is history.

Hi

And who better knows history than GodAllahYHWH the All-Knowing, so when GodAllahYHWH has revealed that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross, rather he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet alive and was treated in the tomb of Armithea, so that must be understood. Since he did not die on Cross, so there is no question of resurrection and ascention to skies.

I think the superstitious stories should not be treated as a piece of history by me Catholic friends.

I suggest you reading a book written by the PromisedMessiah 1838-1908 which mentions a lot of historic resources also.
alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html

Peace, no compulsion

Thanks

 

[inJESUS]

This is not what i qeustion. What i am asking is, assuming that Islam do no believe in the crucifixtion; then how do they explain the indepedent Historical sources and the theories of judaism, such as the claim that the apostles stole the body? Why would they make something like that up? Would it not be the case that if history shows that Jesus was crucified, that this revelation would undermine the revelotory value of the Koran?

you are talking about average Muslims following the hadith and tradition and you are correct, they oppose both logic and history. FaithofAbraham is not a typical muslim, he rejects these meaningless distortions of history, and tries to reconcile both Quran and NT.

 

[hamba2han]

Al-Qur’an, 003.065-069
O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye then no sense?
Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allah knoweth. Ye know not.
Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.
Lo! those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him, and this Prophet and those who believe (with him); and Allah is the Protecting Guardian of the believers.
A party of the People of the Scripture long to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not.

There is a sign that we need to be aware of here folks.

If you discover that the question of who was the son to be sacrificed or the question of who was allegedly on the cross becomes unimportant to you, then this is a sign that you are very much closer to being a Muslim than being a Christian or a Jew.

The Qur’an is absolutely right i.e. those who argue about these matters have no knowledge whatsoever about them and they really are basing their arguments on nothing but conjecture.

At the time of the divine revelation to Prophet Moses (pbuh), how on earth can anyone then except God Himself know for certain what really happened at the time of Prophet Abraham (pbuh)?

And if there is no way for us to know for sure who the son to be sacrificed was at the time of Prophet Abraham, then what possible difference would it make to either Christians or Jews as to the identity of the person on the cross at the time of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon them both)?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Al-Qur’an, 003.065-069
**
And if there is no way for us to know for sure who the son to be sacrificed was at the time of Prophet Abraham, then what possible difference would it make to either Christians or Jews as to the identity of the person on the cross at the time of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon them both)?**

If the Bible says it was Isaac and the Quran only mentions Isaac in the immediate vicinity of the binding account and Ishmael is never mentioned at all in that chapter, I don’t think there’s any mystery. Unless Jews snuck into the Quran and changed the name of Ishmael to Isaac as well.

And it’s easy to see that when the Quran says Jesus wasn’t crucified, but God took him, that means yes he was on the cross but he wasn’t executed by it, God took his spirit before the cross killed his body.

So does it make sense for a Muslim or anyone to say that it is better to trash a good deal of Genesis and the Gospels and prophecies of how Jesus would be rejected and die, just because we don’t understand what crucifixion means as a form of execution, and just because we think Ishmael deserves to be there more than Isaac?

Not even.

 

[hamba2han]

If the Bible says it was Isaac and the Quran only mentions Isaac in the immediate vicinity of the binding account and Ishmael is never mentioned at all in that chapter, I don’t think there’s any mystery. Unless Jews snuck into the Quran and changed the name of Ishmael to Isaac as well.

And it’s easy to see that when the Quran says Jesus wasn’t crucified, but God took him, that means yes he was on the cross but he wasn’t executed by it, God took his spirit before the cross killed his body.

So does it make sense for a Muslim or anyone to say that it is better to trash a good deal of Genesis and the Gospels and prophecies of how Jesus would be rejected and die, just because we don’t understand what crucifixion means as a form of execution, and just because we think Ishmael deserves to be there more than Isaac?

Not even.

Since you say that you are a Muslim, then why is it important at all for you to know the identity of the son who was to be sacrificed?

Why is it important at all for you to know the identity of the person on the cross?

These are questions that anyone who professes to be a Muslim should really, REALLY ask themselves for no one’s sake but their own.

 

[ralphinal]

It seems like there are three possibilities here.

1. Jesus died while on the Cross (includes what FoA is saying as well as traditional Christian beliefs).
2. Jesus was on the cross but did not die while God allowed people to think he did.
3. Jesus was not on the cross, but God made it seem like it or replaced Jesus with someone else so that they thought he died.

Wouldn’t the second and third option make God guilty of a deception?

 

[hamba2han]

It seems like there are three possibilities here.

1. Jesus died while on the Cross (includes what FoA is saying as well as traditional Christian beliefs).
2. Jesus was on the cross but did not die while God allowed people to think he did.
3. Jesus was not on the cross, but God made it seem like it or replaced Jesus with someone else so that they thought he died.

Wouldn’t the second and third option make God guilty of a deception?

The first option makes God guilty of standing aside and allowing a gruesome murder to take place despite being in a position to stop the crime.

On the other hand, performing a grand illusion like what David Copperfield did by making the Statue of Liberty “dissapear” is surely not a crime.

 

[rpp]

It seems like there are three possibilities here.

1. Jesus died while on the Cross (includes what FoA is saying as well as traditional Christian beliefs).
2. Jesus was on the cross but did not die while God allowed people to think he did.
3. Jesus was not on the cross, but God made it seem like it or replaced Jesus with someone else so that they thought he died.

Wouldn’t the second and third option make God guilty of a deception?

The first option makes God guilty of standing aside and allowing a gruesome murder to take place despite being in a position to stop the crime.

On the other hand, performing a grand illusion like what David Copperfield did by making the Statue of Liberty “dissapear” is surely not a crime.

Hamba2han, your analysis is flawed. Let me explain. I that you do not understand some important underpinnings of Christian theology.

Briefly these are:

• The necessity of sacrifice.
• God works through nature.
• God cannot change.
• God cannot deceive.

Theology, specifically Jewish theology, the context in which the Crucifixion took place, requires a sacrifice for sin. Jesus, being both God and man combined in a mystical way known as the hypostatic union, is that perfect sacrifice. Thus, it was not a matter of God standing idly by doing nothing to prevent a crime, but rather Him allowing this Perfect Sacrifice to be made for the atonement of sins.

Your analysis of the second and third points reduce the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe to the level of a Las Vegas showman. Since I do not think that is what you really meant, then the only alternative is that God is a deceiver. After all, he “fooled” not only all the onlookers, but nearly 70 generations of Christians.

Islamic theology allows for God to be a little capricious at times, even change His mind or choose differently later than He did earlier. Christian theology does not permit any of this. God is perfect, lives outside of time and has perfect and complete knowledge of absolutely everything without exception. Therefore He cannot change, nor be capricious.

Another difference between Islamic and Christian theology is that in Christian Theology, God only works through the natural world. Even the miracles of Jesus and signs of God’s abilities working through nature by restoring someone to health. Thus God never engages in illusion. An example of this would be the Israelites fleeing the Egyptians and crossing the Red Sea. God performed a miracle in allowing the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea on dry land, then collapsed the waters on the Egyptian soldiers who pursued them. If God were a deceiver He could have simply misdirected the soldiers into going the wrong way. Instead, He permitted the free will of the Egyptians to lead them into disaster.

In Christian theology, God can never deceive (nor be deceived).

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

The first option makes God guilty of standing aside and allowing a gruesome murder to take place despite being in a position to stop the crime…

True - unless, of course, the person on the Cross is God Himself incarnate.

This thread is falling to pieces because neither Jews nor Muslims believe that Jesus possesses divine nature, ie - Jesus is God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The first option makes God guilty of standing aside and allowing a gruesome murder to take place despite being in a position to stop the crime.

On the other hand, performing a grand illusion like what David Copperfield did by making the Statue of Liberty “dissapear” is surely not a crime.

God not only stood aside but directly killed David’s innocent son because David had Uriah killed.

But David’s son was glorified being resurrected as the Prophet, and further glorified being resurrected as the Messiah.

The only conclusion is that God took his spirit home both times and left his body for dead, then raised Jesus in glory.