A
abucs
Guest
OK, thanks.
- Status
L
LtTony
Guest
Ninety-two: You might find some answers with these. I haven’t looked at all of them myself.
forum2.aimoo.com/christianityresearch/Islam/The-Qur-an-on-Bible-Corruption-1-1341.html
answer-islam.org/zaataribible.html
answer-islam.org/englishbible.html
answer-islam.org/PaulandMuhammad2.html
answer-islam.org/Christian-MuslimRelationship.html
Planten: thanks for your reply. I’ll have to read it later.
forum2.aimoo.com/christianityresearch/Islam/The-Qur-an-on-Bible-Corruption-1-1341.html
answer-islam.org/zaataribible.html
answer-islam.org/englishbible.html
answer-islam.org/PaulandMuhammad2.html
answer-islam.org/Christian-MuslimRelationship.html
Planten: thanks for your reply. I’ll have to read it later.
H
Hypatia
Guest
I think the claim that the Bible is worthless is an overstatement. And, following that thought up…there is definitely a minority tradition within Islam that accepts that Jesus was executed by crucifixion, more or less as recounted in the various Gospels. Al-Razi and ibn’Sina would be the most prominent examples I can think of, but it is also present in certain strands of Shia Islam even into the present.
To get off on a total tangent, it is even the implication of the commentary of an accepted mainstream reader like Muhammad Asad. Asad totally treats the ascension in an allegorical way (see his note on 4.158). Nonetheless he continues to treat 157 as a literal denial of the crucifixion, despite the fact that an allegorical reading of 158 demands an allegorical reading of 4.157 as well [you say he is dead; we say he is exalted — if the exaltation is not mythological claim about Jesus being taken into heaven (and Asad is clear that it is not), then the claim about his death, which is being denied, must not be literal either). This drift in Asad is only reinforced by the fact that he gives the most obvious translation of 5.117 as well: namely, that Jesus “died”. In many ways, Asad’s tendency on this is not surprising, since he is deeply influenced by Razi.
Again, there is no set Islamic dogma on the topic.
I would be wary of reading “kitab” too literally as book. It is quite often a figurative term for God’s revelation (I think this warning regarding how to interpret ‘kitab’ is overlooked by way too many ordinary Muslims as well). In fact, the figurative use of kitab is the more likely in a large number of cases. Even the Qur’an is, as the title implies, seen primarily as a Recitation. It does not become a book in the modern sense for some time. Again Asad is a good reference (e.g., his notes on 2.213 emphasize the non-literal reading of kitab). Thus, there are plenty of Muslim scholars who deny that the Injil refers to a physical book, but is instead a shorthand for the teachings of Jesus (pbuh). [This can get combined with the corruption theory I suppose by saying the NT writers incorporate and pervert the original message of Jesus, but this is not how the corruption folks normally argue as far as I can tell.]
In short, there is no book, in the literal sense, written down by Jesus (pbuh).
Allahu alam.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I’m a bit confused on one thing: earlier you said that corruption was not an allegation against the Bible by Islam, which (although contradictory with the majority of Muslim apologetics and what Mohammad’s companions argued) seems to suggest that the Bible was not corrupted and is, as we hold it today, fairly trustworthy. Here it seems to now be suggested that there was some corruption - what I mean is the question of whether or not the Gospel of John constructs an image of a “historical Jesus.” That seems to then contradict your next point that there is no evidence of any kind of perversion of Christ’s revelation. Especially in your next point (which I’ll get to in a moment) where you argue on whether or not John’s gospel is reliable. If John’s gospel is not reliable, then some corruption did take place. That is the inevitable conclusion.
And really, it is the conclusion Muslims have to come up with. If they say the NT is trustworthy, then it still contradicts so many Muslim teachings. They confirm Christ’s divinity, they confirm the crucifixion and that it was Jesus on the cross, they confirm that He died and that He rose again, and that this Resurrection was for the benefit of mankind. Therefore the Muslim has to come to the conclusion of corruption - if he doesn’t, then he admits the Quran and Islam is in error. If he tries to prove Islam from an “uncorrupted” Bible, he does so out of eisegesis and ignoring entire passages of scripture, as I have seen done over and over on this forum.
If these men were or are “devout” Christians, then one has to wonder if “devout” Christians would question whether or not Christ identified Himself as God or if His apostles could be trusted in their accounts. One might as well call a person who denies that Mohammad ever claimed to be a prophet as a “devout” Muslim. Furthermore, if we are to speak of scholars who denounce the reliability of John or whether or not Christ said what we believe He said, what then of scholars who say the exact opposite? Such as Bruce Metzger (who helped edit the UBS Greek NT), Daniel Wallace (who is a leading NT Greek scholar of this day), James White (who has debated on the manuscripts against Muslims), Richard Bauckham, Norman Geisler, and many more.
What, also, of the very early Church Fathers? St. Irenaeus, in his famous Against Heresies, identifies some false gospels, and then identifies the four true gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. St. Irenaeus, incidentally, was a mid-2nd century Father who was a disciple to Polycarp who was a disciple to the apostle John. Here we have early on that the Christians knew the four gospels and identified them as accurate and sourced to their respective authors.
I have to admit the constant reference to the appeal of historians makes me wonder if we are supposed to treat the Bible as a history book in the most textbook-like sense. Of course, it was not written as a “history book” - not to mean that the Bible is not historically accurate, but that it is supposed to appeal solely to certain standards. You would never, for example, find John Keegan or Stephen Ambrose writing about historical events the way the writers of 1 and 2 Kings writing about the events of Israel’s history.
In fact, the Bible is just as much a book on theology as historical events. The synoptics were more historical because they were dealing with who Jesus was, as the Gospel was just getting out into the world. John - writing his gospel at a time when most people knew who Christ was and the Church was facing many different heresies (especially the Gnostics) - wrote his gospel to address what Jesus was. This is why John’s gospel is far more theological in nature than that of Matthew, Mark and Luke. This does not, however, deny any historicity (aka accuracy) within its account on the life of Christ.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
What is the middle ground between worthless and corrupt? If a document is corrupt it means that it is based off something purer which is seen to have value. If the Bible is not to be held to be true, and not to be held to be corrupt, then the only other alternative is that it had not worth in the first place, that it is simply, as I’ve seen a Jewish poster refer to it, as a pious fiction. If you give it value, say that it has some basis, but is otherwise wrong, you are saying it is corrupt. Therefore you need to take a stand, is it corrupt, or did it never have any value in the first place?
But I’m not asking for what people have said, I’m asking you to defend what you’ve said. The crucifixion and the resurrection in the gospels are most certainly not allegorical.
Yes, I made mention of the fact that “People of the Book” is a reference to the idea that we hold a revelation from God, I did not mean it to mean an actual book, however the revelation is held within that book. If you toss away the Bible, you toss away the revelation. No matter how you interprete “People of the Book” - and as I said I interprete it to mean the revelation - your argument leaves us without.
So the question remains. Is the Koran wrong on this? For your arguments leave us without a book (or revelation) to be people of.
[/quote]
[/quote]
H
Hypatia
Guest
As I have already mentioned, it offers the best access we have to the historical Jesus. So, I think worthless is an overstatement. And even though one may conclude that, e.g., John or Paul is wrong about Jesus, it does not mean they aren’t interesting thinkers (one can see this, for instance, in the revival of Paul readings that is going in amongst completely secular philosophers).
If you prefer “corrupt” as a way of characterizing my position I suppose that is fine. I think there is gap between the NT writers and the teachings of Jesus, and the only way we recognize that gap is through historical work on the various texts themselves. When I said they were not corrupt, earlier in the thread, I made quite clear in what sense I meant it: the texts of the NT as we have them are faithful transmissions of the texts as they were composed.
Sure, I agree with that. It is very hard to ascertain what Jesus (pbuh) taught, and when the historians, even Christian historians, do reconstruct a picture for us, he doesn’t seem to look a lot like the Jesus of Christianity. It is clearly the hope of Muslims, and this still seems true to me, that Christians (for example) will recognize God’s revelation because of their worship of the One and their desire for union with God. For now, though, the continued fetishizing of Jesus persists as a barrier to Christians recognizing the truth of the One. We recognize Christians as people of the Book because they, based upon the message of Jesus, worship the One, however flawed their understanding of the One and Jesus (pbuh) seems to be. We are left to hope that as they examine their own texts and history, that the idolization of Jesus will be, however gradually, overcome. Then Jesus (pbuh) will in fact prove, for them, the path to Allah (swt) that Muslims have always thought he could be.
Finally, the idea that a particular kitab is buried irretrievably beneath the sands of history is not foreign to Islam (e.g., Abraham (pbuh)). For that matter a very limited number of prophets are mentioned in the Qur’an at all. So there are all sorts of things that are hidden from us by history. Our knowledge of what Jesus said may well remain very limited.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m not even sure I should bother responding to this, but I’ll give it a go…
Ok, so what you’re saying is that as far as religious texts go they are worthless, which is what I was getting at.
No, you’ve made it clear, you’re trying to avoid calling it worthless, what you actually mean is it is religiously worthless.
Wait… we’re to examine our own texts to come to the conclussion that we are not to worship Jesus, when you just argued they have no religious value because as I already pointed out they say that Jesus is God. Additionally if you’re going to retreat to the idea of “historians” and their reconstruction of the life of Christ, and if you are going to use them as authority figures, you have to accept what they say about the Koran as well. And I can guarantee that none of those names you mentioned earlier believe Mohammed to be anything more than a false prophet.
Nonetheless you yourself are claiming that Christians don’t actually follow a revelation from God, and therefore the Koran is wrong.
H
Hypatia
Guest
I think I pretty much gave Metzger’s position in the opening. The primary thrust of Metzger’s work was the reliability of the textual tradition and with standards of canonization (e.g., why certain texts that the early Xns though of as inspired were excluded, etc.). The texts we have are the texts that were written.
Metzger is not primarily known for being a historical Jesus person, though.
If your point is that there is a lot of variation in the reconstructions of Jesus, then, yes, that is obviously true: just check out the distance between Crossan and Meier.
I certainly do not expect the books of the NT to be histories in the modern sense. That would be completely out of keeping with the time and place they were written. Nor do I think they are only interesting as histories. In fact, in many ways, Paul and John are more interesting for the way they think about reality, as I suggested above, and can be usefully read even if you are not religious at all.
But I do think we approach them as we would other great and important works. So when we are asking what do these texts tell us about Jesus, we are asking a question about history and we approach them as historical sources to be excavated. If we are asking what Paul thought, we are asking a question that is historical (trying to root the texts in their setting) and literary (these are works of an author with a certain style and power) and even theological/philosophical, and we bring those tools to bear.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
If by “historical Jesus” you mean Jesus as simply a person in history, then no he would not be, and neither would the rest of the scholars I mentioned (whom you left out in your quote, focusing on one small part of my entire post). St. Irenaeus would also be a bit surprised to hear that you call the teacher of his master, the apostle John who the synoptics show as being one of Christ’s three most trusted apostles, giving an unreliable presentation of Jesus.
I would again question how “devout” a “Christian” would be if they believed in a non-divine Christ. That would be like me saying, “Well this devout Muslim scholar says that Mohammad may have been in error and that the Quran is not reliable.” You’d probably question how much a “devout Muslim” that person was.
Agreed, but that is not the question being asked about. The question regards the Muslim argument that the Bible (or Jewish and Christian scriptures, any way) was corrupted. You seem to have argued on one hand, “No, and Islam doesn’t say that” (even though Mohammad’s companions argued it) and on the other hand, “Well the NT is not reliable and we will never ever be able to know what Jesus really said.” If the NT is not what it claims to be, which is an account of Christ and the early Church (and it does say that, as the beginning of Luke’s gospel, as well as Peter’s and John’s epistles, show) then some corruption had to have taken place. Your argumentation attempts to dance around a conclusion that your reasoning only leads back to.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
But the Koran is exempt from this stuff?
H
Hypatia
Guest
I don’t think I danced around anything. I that is almost a perfect rehash of what I said to 9-2 a few posts earlier…
“I think there is gap between the NT writers and the teachings of Jesus, and the only way we recognize that gap is through historical work on the various texts themselves. When I said they were not corrupt, earlier in the thread, I made quite clear in what sense I meant it: the texts of the NT as we have them are faithful transmissions of the texts as they were composed.”
I think the tension I outlined in #46 is the tension that Islam has always found present within Christianity. On the one hand we recognize that you worship the One and desire to surrender yourselves to God in love. The foundations and impetus for this clearly lie, in some real and meaningful sense with Jesus (pbuh). On the other hand, Christians do all this in such a way that their understanding of the One and of Jesus is revealed to be horribly flawed.
This seems to be the basic thrust of the Qur’an: ‘Christians are People of the Book, but wow, have they ever screwed things up in the way they talk about Jesus and God.’
I do in fact think that the same type of approaches and methods ought be used to study the Qur’an and the history of the early Islamic community. It is already typical of Qur’anic interpretation that the setting and background within with the saying was given is taken into account.
It is important that this kind of work continue, using modern historical and literary methods. I have said as much and even cited some of the work that has shown profit in this regard in another thread.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
If they are faithful transmissions, then we have a good account of what Christ said by the early Christians…and the Quran is in complete and utter error regarding its teachings of what Jesus said, and the arguments by the Quran, Mohammad’s companions, and Muslim apologists in general that some corruption did take place are false.
Luke wrote at the beginning of his gospel:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4; ESV]
John wrote in his epistles:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life… [1 John 1:1-2; ESV]
Peter wrote in his epistles:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [2 Peter 1:16; ESV]
And if you say this is true (and at times it is hard to see if you do, because you seem to sometimes argue that the NT gives an unreliable account, hence the idea of dancing around) then, as I said, the Quran is in error. The Quran denies the crucifixion, denies the death of Christ on the cross, denies His resurrection, denies belief in Him and His death on the cross as equaling salvation, denies Him as the final and last glorious revelation to mankind…all of which the NT confirms.
Again, this is why Muslims have to argue for corruption, and no doubt why Mohammad’s companions told the early Muslims not to read the past revelations: because once you study them in earnest, you realize that they completely contradict the Quran. If the Quran is supposed to be in line with the Christian and Jewish revelation, and it contradicts that which came before it, by whose standard to we give? If you say the NT is reliable, then it is the standard. And as it stands, the Quran fails that standard.
H
Hypatia
Guest
As far as I can tell, you aren’t arguing with Muslims, you are arguing with the whole tradition of biblical scholarship as it emerged since Reimarus (which Muslims haven’t had anything to do with).
To say that the texts as we have them now are, substantially, the texts as they were written is not at all the same thing as saying that one can easily reconstruct the historical person of Jesus from those texts.
i have already dealt with this topic in this thread, here.
The claims of the resurrection are incredible and you have plenty of Christians who think so as well. Hegel, Bultmann think Christ rises into the community as a living presence (this idea then finds expression in mythological terms as the stories of the resurrection). Barth thinks the resurrection is real but not historical. The Dominican priest Schillebeeckx finds no historical support. Crossan believes it unlikely that Jesus even received a burial, etc., etc.
Pannenberg is the most significant 20th c. thinker I can come up with who tried to show the truth of the resurrection on historical grounds (see Jesus:God and Man). And, even in his case, the best he could do was hold up Paul’s vision of Jesus as the model for what was meant by resurrection experiences. The empty tomb and bodily experiences of Jesus are, in the end, ditched by Pannenberg as historically unreliable.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Actually, we are arguing with Muslims, because the subject of this thread is “Islam and the corruption of the Bible.”
To continually fall back on liberal Christian (and borderline atheist) scholars (many of whom would probably disagree with Islam’s summary of this topic) ignores the point of the thread.Then the only logical conclusion to come to is that there was some corruption of the Christian scriptures, which the Quran teaches and which you deny. Corruption in the sense that yes, the Bible is worthless, because it is not what Christ gave to the apostles, and the men who claim within the NT to be eyewitnesses and writing what they witnessed are liars. It calls them false gospels and false epistles. Therefore, yes, some corruption took place.
Yes, I saw that post. You mentioned a handful of Muslim scholars and seemed to ignore the much larger argumentation by orthodox Islam. You said, for example, that there is a “minority tradition within Islam that accepts that Jesus was executed by crucifixion.” What does the Quran itself say?
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. [S. 4:157; Yusuf Ali; emphasis mine]
It is ironic somewhat that the Quran says the ones who crucified Christ are the ones with conjecture when you admit that “there is no set Islamic dogma on the topic.”
But in relation to the OP topic, the NT, again, confirms the crucifixion and Christ’s death. Yes, they did kill Him. Yes, they did crucify Him. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be shocked to hear otherwise (especially John, who was right there at the cross). Again, this is why Muslims have to argue for corruption. As a sahih hadith I cited earlier showed, they did argue this as early as the time of Mohammad.
You continue to name drop men whom you label “Christians” without addressing my continual counterargument on just how “Christian” most of these men are (Crossan, for example, most people would not consider a true Christian). You have also ignored my question on whether Muslims who would state that Mohammad never said he was a prophet or that the Quran is not fully reliable in its teachings or accounts of events could be considered real Muslims, which leads one to believe that we are dealing with double standards. It also, again, ignores the wealth of scholars, many of whom I cited, who support the authenticity of the NT and its reliability, including an early Church Father - all of which you simply ignored, making a throw-away comment about Bruce Metzger.
The fact remains, if there is no historical support for the NT, then the NT is not reliable, and if you say that, then there was some corruption of Christ’s teachings. This, however, was not the case.
H
Hypatia
Guest
I answered what I took to be the point of the thread. There is no evidence that the texts themselves were significantly altered from the time of their composition. 9-2 then asked about why there were disagreements between the Qur’an and the Bible, and I answered that as well. I addressed issues of how to read the Qur’an (including 4.157-158, which you bring up again); I also addressed the problems with trying to establish knowledge of Jesus. I cited Christian scholars here for two reasons. First, because, not surprisingly, it is predominantly Christians who are doing the important work in the field. Second, to show that the position I was arguing was not simply that of some Muslim with an axe to grind, but agrees with broader scholarship.Actually, we are arguing with Muslims, because the subject of this thread is “Islam and the corruption of the Bible.”
I denied that there was some original text waiting to be uncovered. In fact the texts we know are basically the texts as written. There is, obviously, a gap between the portrayal of Jesus in those texts and who Jesus was.
It ought to be obvious why I “ignore” it. I disagree with it and think it is historically indefensible.
Again, quoting what I said in #43:
“it [death by crucifixion] is even the implication of the commentary of an accepted mainstream reader like Muhammad Asad. Asad totally treats the ascension in an allegorical way (see his note on 4.158). Nonetheless he continues to treat 157 as a literal denial of the crucifixion, despite the fact that an allegorical reading of 158 demands an allegorical reading of 4.157 as well [you say he is dead; we say he is not dead, but exalted — if the exaltation is not mythological claim about Jesus being taken into heaven (and Asad is clear that it is not), then the claim about his death, which is being denied, must not be literal either]. This drift in Asad is only reinforced by the fact that he gives the most obvious translation of 5.117 as well: namely, that Jesus “died”. In many ways, Asad’s tendency on this is not surprising, since he is deeply influenced by Razi.” {edited slightly for clarity}
and that pretty much summarizes my take on what to do with 4.157-158: If you are going to look for the inner meaning of the ascension, then you have to do the same thing with the claim that Jesus was not killed (Asad does not, but he ought to).
Allahu alam.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
So once again, you conclude that the koran is wrong, as Christians are not People of the Book, according to you.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
In that case, we can trust the Bible and ignore the Quran for its fallacies regarding Christians, their beliefs and scriptures. That’s good to know.
“Broader scholarship” includes varying points of view, and you left out the positive scholars (including an early Church Father with ties to the apostles), focusing only on the negative. That isn’t broader scholarship, that’s a Muslim taking what he can from liberal scholarship while attempting to remain Muslim, even though the conclusions of the two groups, as I pointed out earlier to LtTony, are completely incompatible.
You also, again, ignored my question regarding the true “devout” nature of these men, if they actually did deny tenants of the Christian faith. I will ask you once again: would you call a Muslim who claimed that Mohammad never claimed to be a prophet, that the Quran was not reliable, and that we do not know the historical Mohammad and therefore what Mohammad really said to be a “devout” Muslim? That is a yes or no question.
I will also again ask another question I have that you have avoided: if the NT is as it was originally written, but it does not present the “historical” Jesus to us, then were the NT writers liars when they claimed to be eyewitnesses? Again, that’s a yes or no question.
Again, your summary regarding the text is not what the companions of the prophet and early Muslims and majority of Islam says. Why should we take your opinion as orthodox when the majority of Islam disagrees with you?
Which actually brings us to the next point…
Wait a moment…are you arguing that the majority of Islam and orthodox Islam in general is “historically indefensible”?
Repeating an argument does not equal demonstrating it. The Quran clearly says they did not crucify Him and they did not kill Him. I don’t know how allegorical you can get there. The majority of Islam seems to argue that the crucifixion, in one way or another, did not happen as Christians believe, and most of all that Christ did not die. This contradicts the crucifixion account in all four gospels and in the epistles.
Which, again, explains why the allegations of corruption have to be made: because that revelation which was given to Christians contradicts that revelation given to Muslims.
A
artist3189
Guest
Posted by hamba2han
And even renown Christian scholars have acknowledged that there have been numerous alterations in Christian scriptures.
St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:
“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”
This quote is taken TOTALLY out of *context, which, I am not surprised by. To ASSUME that St. Augustine was referring to ‘Sacred Scripture’ *is absurd, which is precisely what you are tying to infer here, a silly tactic. St. Augustine would never disparage or contradict *‘Sacred Scripture’ *as being anything other than the total word of God. His reference to the *‘many things’ *refers to the various sects and their corrupting of Christian traditions which was rampant during his lifetime… something a Muslim of today can surely appreciate. Please don’t quote any saints as proof text, as if using quotes by them somehow strengthens your position. It doesn’t.
And even renown Christian scholars have acknowledged that there have been numerous alterations in Christian scriptures.
St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:
“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”
This quote is taken TOTALLY out of *context, which, I am not surprised by. To ASSUME that St. Augustine was referring to ‘Sacred Scripture’ *is absurd, which is precisely what you are tying to infer here, a silly tactic. St. Augustine would never disparage or contradict *‘Sacred Scripture’ *as being anything other than the total word of God. His reference to the *‘many things’ *refers to the various sects and their corrupting of Christian traditions which was rampant during his lifetime… something a Muslim of today can surely appreciate. Please don’t quote any saints as proof text, as if using quotes by them somehow strengthens your position. It doesn’t.
P
planten
Guest
B W is again exploring the Crucifixion. We have explained the subject many times before. See the words of B W below:
So what is the meaning?? It means that at the incident of crucifixion, Jesus was not killed. He was also not killed in any other way too.
So what happened to than man (Jesus) who was very much alive all the time??
He was alive and could never appear in public. He did not do that. He met his friends only. Later he separated from them and disappeared on the horizon. Where did he go?
Did he go up to heavens?? Not at all. He migrated like did all the prophets of God. Jesus had said that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel (see bibleNT).
He had also said that he had other sheep whi will follow him. It meant that the local sheep rejected him. But the other (lost sheep of Israel) will follow Jesus.
He surely went in search of those sheep, as he had promised. Every one should try to find out where were those lost sheep of Israel. At that time, onlytwo Jewish tribes were in kana’an. The other Ten (10) tribes of the Jews were scattered fat away in the eastern countires.
More from Quran: Allah accepted the prayer of Jesus to avoid the cup and gave him the following message:
" O Jesus, I will give you a natural death and raise you to myself. And I will clear you from all blames of your opponents and I will make those believing in you to prevail upon your enemies till the day of Resurrection (Qiyaamah)." Al-Quran 3:55.
This verse of the Quran is clearly telling that Jesus will die a natural death and not be killed by sword or on the cross. (Mutawaffeeka means passing away peacefuly).
The raising ti Himself is mentioned after the death of Jesus, not before.
Allah promised Jesus to clear him from all blames of Jews etc.
Allah promised Jesus victory for his friends ove rhis enemies.
These are four promises of God to Jesus in his life time. All the four have been fulfilled. Please see that the natural death of Jesus is the first promise. Raising Jesus ( soul only in ranks) is the second promise. That is after his death, not before.
I know many Muslims believe that Jesus is alive in heavens. But that is not any proved thing from Quran or hadith. The very early Muslim scholars, all believed that Jesus had died a natural death. One Hadith is telling that Jesus lived a good life of about 120 years.
Hypatia is giving good high level replies to B W, if they are accepted. Well and Good.
WE have explained that Quran denies the crucifixion in the meaning of death on the Cross. Real meaning of Crucifixion is death on the cross, not just putting up on the cross. The Quran denies that death. It states that Jesus was not Crucified (Killed on cross). He was not killed in any other way too.
So what is the meaning?? It means that at the incident of crucifixion, Jesus was not killed. He was also not killed in any other way too.
So what happened to than man (Jesus) who was very much alive all the time??
He was alive and could never appear in public. He did not do that. He met his friends only. Later he separated from them and disappeared on the horizon. Where did he go?
Did he go up to heavens?? Not at all. He migrated like did all the prophets of God. Jesus had said that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel (see bibleNT).
He had also said that he had other sheep whi will follow him. It meant that the local sheep rejected him. But the other (lost sheep of Israel) will follow Jesus.
He surely went in search of those sheep, as he had promised. Every one should try to find out where were those lost sheep of Israel. At that time, onlytwo Jewish tribes were in kana’an. The other Ten (10) tribes of the Jews were scattered fat away in the eastern countires.
More from Quran: Allah accepted the prayer of Jesus to avoid the cup and gave him the following message:
" O Jesus, I will give you a natural death and raise you to myself. And I will clear you from all blames of your opponents and I will make those believing in you to prevail upon your enemies till the day of Resurrection (Qiyaamah)." Al-Quran 3:55.
This verse of the Quran is clearly telling that Jesus will die a natural death and not be killed by sword or on the cross. (Mutawaffeeka means passing away peacefuly).
The raising ti Himself is mentioned after the death of Jesus, not before.
Allah promised Jesus to clear him from all blames of Jews etc.
Allah promised Jesus victory for his friends ove rhis enemies.
These are four promises of God to Jesus in his life time. All the four have been fulfilled. Please see that the natural death of Jesus is the first promise. Raising Jesus ( soul only in ranks) is the second promise. That is after his death, not before.
I know many Muslims believe that Jesus is alive in heavens. But that is not any proved thing from Quran or hadith. The very early Muslim scholars, all believed that Jesus had died a natural death. One Hadith is telling that Jesus lived a good life of about 120 years.
Hypatia is giving good high level replies to B W, if they are accepted. Well and Good.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The Crucifixion is not what this thread is about, however corruption in the bible is on topic. You Planten, in a defense of the Koran said that God would never allow his holy books to become corrupted, yet you decry the NT account of the crucifixion as corrupt. Why the double standards? What proof do you have that the Koran is correct and the Bible is wrong (since they are both Holy Books).
- Status