Jesus Did Not Die

[ashab_al-yameen]

ashab al-yameen:

Now, we see here that Jesus Barabbas was released, and that Jesus “which is called Christ” was released.

Let me correct something:

“and that Jesus “which is called Christ” was released.”
Is supposed to be “and that Jesus “which is called Christ” was taken.”

 

[Faith101]

Booklover:

He preached to the Jews first because they were the Chosen People.

?

If he was sent for mankind, than he was sent for mankind.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Faith101:

no where in the Bible is there CLEAR verse indicating that Jesus Christ was god/son of god. If this is the basic foundation of your belief, than it would only make sense for their to be ONE verse that has Jesus telling someone “I am god/son of god, worship me”. On the contrary, tte Bible is full of verses indicating Jesus’s prophethood. I dont want to argue this point…others have pointed out verses that they say indicate his divinity, all of which can be interpreted in a more than one way.

You have the right to believe in whatever you want. But Muslims believe that Jesus and Mohamed peace be upon them both…were messengers from God…sent to relay the message: There is only one God, worship Him. Accept it or deny it, you’ll be asked to explain yourself at the end (so will all of us, ofource).

No clear verse, ha? Explain to me why Jesus was put to death then? Why was there a trial before the Sanhedrin? Because He didn’t claim to be God? I’m sorry, but your argument here is rediculous! If He didn’t claim to be God, why did the Jews want to kill Him? Why did Ciaphas tear his cloak? Because Jesus wasn’t claiming to be God? Please get the Christian story right before you make such absurd claims like there is no “clear evidence.” Read Matt 16 where Peter tells Jesus “you are the Messiah” and the praise Jesus gives Peter for recognizing this.

 

[Shenango]

JP2Admirer:

Explain to me why Jesus was put to death then? Why was there a trial before the Sanhedrin? Because He didn’t claim to be God? I’m sorry, but your argument here is rediculous! If He didn’t claim to be God, why did the Jews want to kill Him? Why did Ciaphas tear his cloak? Because Jesus wasn’t claiming to be God? Please get the Christian story right before you make such absurd claims like there is no “clear evidence.” Read Matt 16 where Peter tells Jesus “you are the Messiah” and the praise Jesus gives Peter for recognizing this.

The Jews would have tried to put Jesus (PBUH) to death for the same reason that he rails against them in Matthew for doing to their previous prophets sent from God (“Jerusalem, the city that stones its prophets…”). Did the previous prophets claim godhood? If not, why did the Jews kill them?

 

[JimG]

ashab al-yameen:

There was ABSOLUTELY NO SWITCHING! Understand my post before jumping to conclusions.

You say that there was no switching; but you do claim that Barabbas was crucified instead of Jesus.

Were Jesus’ disciples aware of this?

If they knew that* their * Jesus had not been crucified, why did each gospel writer devote a large portion of his narrative to the details of a crucifixion which had nothing whatever to do with their Master and Messiah?

Why were Jesus’ Mother and disciples standing at the foot of the cross of a stranger?

Why did Jesus’ disciple Joseph of Arimathea ask for the body of an insurrectionist? And bury him in his tomb?

And why did the women followers of Jesus as well as his two apostles go to his tomb, if he was not buried there?

 

[TZiggy]

Hey,
Where did Lahokamal go?.. that Mischievous Muslim. He sure opened a can of worms!

From what I can see, proponents of Lahokamal’s theory are really grasping… What say you guys try another one and see how that goes?

 

[ashab_al-yameen]

JimG:

You say that there was no switching; but you do claim that Barabbas was crucified instead of Jesus.

Where did I say this?

 

[hawk]

Shenango:

The Jews would have tried to put Jesus (PBUH) to death for the same reason that he rails against them in Matthew for doing to their previous prophets sent from God (“Jerusalem, the city that stones its prophets…”). Did the previous prophets claim godhood? If not, why did the Jews kill them?

The jews killed David or Solomon?

Or elijah?

I dont know but that allegation too, is not entirely true, they did resent past prophets, but they didnt kill them.

 

[Nan_S]

• two men named jesus, both in prison at the same time. one called jesus, the messiah/christ and the other jesus barabbas.
• it is said that barabbas literally means “son of father”, which could be understood to mean “son of God” since “the father” is a common reference to God. the argument is that barabbas is not his name, but rather a title, similar to the title the messiah/christ.
• so, now you have two men named jesus, with no real clear cut indication as to which one is which, jesus the son of God or jesus the messiah, who is supposed to be one in the same… with this doubt exists the possibility that the “wrong” jesus was released and that jesus, the son of mary, was that “wrong” jesus, while the other took his place on the cross.

So you’re saying that Jesus the Christ, the son of the Living God, (Mt 16:16) was actually Jesus Barabbas. And the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, who so desperately wanted to have Jesus Barabbas the Christ killed just an hour or so earlier, who personally delivered Him to Pontius Pilate to pronounce the death sentence, suddenly changed their minds (?) and cried out for the crucifixion of some other no-name insurrectionist.

Given that both men were on public display at that moment, I find it strange that the High Priest and the Sanhedrin would be confused as to their identities.

I think the most telling testimony in the whole crucifixion story is that of Judas Iscariot, the betrayer. He killed himself when he found out it was his Jesus, whom he had followed for 3 years, who was condemned to death.

If we are to believe your version, we must not only believe that all the authors of the New Testament are liars. We must also believe that Jesus Christ Himself is a liar, and falsified the wounds in His hands and side which He presented to his disciples as evidence that He was the one crucified.

Furthermore, we must believe this on the testimony of Muhammad (pbuh), a single man who has no corroborative evidence at all other than the vision he received. The world is full of mystics who have visions that contradict history, and contradict each other as well. Few, if any, are accurate.

As for me, I think I’ll stick with the evidence of history.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Nan_S]

Faith101:

no where in the Bible is there CLEAR verse indicating that Jesus Christ was god/son of god. If this is the basic foundation of your belief, than it would only make sense for their to be ONE verse that has Jesus telling someone “I am god/son of god, worship me”.

I would suggest that you are not as familiar with the Holy Bible as you would have us believe. Here are just a few of the verses which CLEARLY indicate that Jesus Christ is God/son of God. There are plenty more.

*Mt 14:28-33 And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” *

Mt 16:15-18 Jesus said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Mk 14:61-62 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Lk 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

*Jn 11:25-27 Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” *

Jn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

 

[JimG]

ashab al-yameen:

Where did I say this?

Perhaps I misunderstood. Maybe you should just say exactly what you mean.

Was anybody crucified? Jesus? Barabbas? Neither? A third party?

What happened?

Were the gospel accounts of a crucifixion fictitious?

I am just trying to understanding clearly your view of these events narrated in the gospels.

 

[The_Eurasian]

ashab al-yameen:

However, the New Revised Standard Version stopped short from translating “Barabbas” in Matthew 27.

Translating “Barabbas” to “son of Abbas” is not enough, because “Abbas” is not a name either. “Abbas” is the Aramaic for “Father”. With this in mind, if Matthew 27:26 were to be fully translated (as the translators of the Bible should have done), then it would read as follows:

Mat 27:26     Then released he [Jesus] the Son of the Father unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified. "

ashab al-yameen

In the Revised Standard Version, and I think in all the other bibles, Jesus addresses the Father as “ABBA”, without an “S”.

The “abbas” in “Barabbas” has an “s”. So MAYBE. “abbas” is NOT the Aramaic for “father”

 

[JimG]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
ashab al-yameen

In the Revised Standard Version, and I think in all the other bibles, Jesus addresses the Father as “ABBA”, without an “S”.

The “abbas” in “Barabbas” has an “s”. So MAYBE. “abbas” is NOT the Aramaic for “father”

Yes, it could just be a “popular etymology” and also an incorrect etymology. But it doesn’t really matter. Many names have such etymological derivations; it doesn’t prove that the word was not actually the persons’ name.

In any case, the gospel accounts clearly indicate that there were two individuals involved. One was crucifed. One was not. There is not a whit of evidence to demonstrate the Jesus of Nazareth was not crucified.

 

[Writer]

Faith101:

Abraham believed in one God and called people to His worship
Moses believed in one God and called people to His worship
Jesus believed in one God and called people to His worship
Mohamed believed in one God and called people to His worsihp

The essential message has not changed. Mohamed peace be upon him did not add a new idea about God. He said exactly what Abraham and Moses said. We dont deny any of the messengers and none of the revelations that were given to these messengers

The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, “We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers” - and they say, “We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).” (Quran 2:285)

Although Mohamed peace be upon him could have attributed some divinity to himself and accepted the power and money that the Pagan meccans offered him…he did not. The Quran is filled with verses saying that Mohamed is just a man.

Like Jesus, Mohamed did not know everything. For example, the coming of the hour was knowledge they both recognized belonged to God alone.

Christ said himself that he alone was the “way, the truth, and the life”. It seems those of the Islamic faith are trying to have the best of both worlds, but not being intellectually honest in the process. Christ was either exactly who He said He was, or He was a lunatic. Since His words, however, fail to suggest a lunatic, we are left with who He said He was, the Son of God. That being said, those of the Islamic faith can’t simply point to Christ as a great prophet, unless they carefully edit everything else he said concerning His being and His mission. Can’t have it both ways…

By the way, what are the great Islamic accomplishments since the 12th century? I posed this question on another thread, and no one could think of any major cultural or scientific innovations brought forward by members of an Islamic society. Can you?

 

[kristyn]

JP2Admirer:

So what you are saying then, is that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees didn’t know who Jesus was? The very men who begged Pilate to crucify Him wouldn’t recognize an imposter? Roman guards would put there own life on the line to save the life of a Galilean carpenter? These same Romans, who typically hated their outpost in Jerusalem?

Explain to me how the Pharisees didn’t recognize the imposter. Historical evidence, base psychological motivations, and any study done with academic rigor disproves your claim.

If Christ wasn’t crucified, what motivated 12 men to go to there deaths claiming it? Under the pain of suffering, why did all 12 of the Apostles accounts turn out the same? Why did they all claim the same thing, that Christ was crucified? Don’t you think, under pain of torture (and they were tortured), if those closest to Christ had come up with a conspiracy to make Christ God, that one of them would have cracked under the pressure and confess that Christ wasn’t crucified? Why do those closest to Christ in history hold that He was crucified? How does Muhammad, who came 600 years later, know better than those WHO WENT TO THEIR DEATHS holding to the fact that Christ was crucified?

My Muslim brothers, pardon my impatience here but how do you beleive something that isn’t verified by anything but one man’s claim? What if I told you that God spoke to me tonight and said that Muhammad was a false prophet. Would you believe me? Don’t bother verifying my claim though, because verification doesn’t matter as long as I say God spoke to me. If I say God spoke to me you should believe it; that’s exactly what Muhammad did and you believe him. The fact is, NO ONE can verify the claims of Muhammad - he had no witnesses.

If I went into court and said that I was innocent of some crime, and had ten people saying I was guilty, who would you believe? If I claimed that I was innocent based on divine authority, but ten people still said I was guilty, who would the jury believe? Muhammad made claims that are unverifiable, that should be a red flag. Muhammad had no clue what Catholicism or who Christ was, why do you believe his claims about Christ?

Any man can do what Muhammad did; claim to be a prophet while being enslaved to the passions. No mere man can do what Christ did; fulfill prophecy.

I am wondering why none of our Muslim brothers and sisters have not responded to this post? Perhaps, because it is irrefutable?

 

[kristyn]

JP2Admirer:

So what you are saying then, is that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees didn’t know who Jesus was? The very men who begged Pilate to crucify Him wouldn’t recognize an imposter? Roman guards would put there own life on the line to save the life of a Galilean carpenter? These same Romans, who typically hated their outpost in Jerusalem?

Explain to me how the Pharisees didn’t recognize the imposter. Historical evidence, base psychological motivations, and any study done with academic rigor disproves your claim.

If Christ wasn’t crucified, what motivated 12 men to go to there deaths claiming it? Under the pain of suffering, why did all 12 of the Apostles accounts turn out the same? Why did they all claim the same thing, that Christ was crucified? Don’t you think, under pain of torture (and they were tortured), if those closest to Christ had come up with a conspiracy to make Christ God, that one of them would have cracked under the pressure and confess that Christ wasn’t crucified? Why do those closest to Christ in history hold that He was crucified? How does Muhammad, who came 600 years later, know better than those WHO WENT TO THEIR DEATHS holding to the fact that Christ was crucified?

My Muslim brothers, pardon my impatience here but how do you beleive something that isn’t verified by anything but one man’s claim? What if I told you that God spoke to me tonight and said that Muhammad was a false prophet. Would you believe me? Don’t bother verifying my claim though, because verification doesn’t matter as long as I say God spoke to me. If I say God spoke to me you should believe it; that’s exactly what Muhammad did and you believe him. The fact is, NO ONE can verify the claims of Muhammad - he had no witnesses.

If I went into court and said that I was innocent of some crime, and had ten people saying I was guilty, who would you believe? If I claimed that I was innocent based on divine authority, but ten people still said I was guilty, who would the jury believe? Muhammad made claims that are unverifiable, that should be a red flag. Muhammad had no clue what Catholicism or who Christ was, why do you believe his claims about Christ?

Any man can do what Muhammad did; claim to be a prophet while being enslaved to the passions. No mere man can do what Christ did; fulfill prophecy.

I am wondering why none of our Muslim brothers and sisters have not responded to this post? Perhaps, because it is irrefutable?

 

[Writer]

kristyn:

I am wondering why none of our Muslim brothers and sisters have not responded to this post? Perhaps, because it is irrefutable?

I have noticed as soon as the good arguments begin, our Muslim brothers and sisters seem to dwindle and disappear entirely only to resurface again elsewhere on the forums–usually with the same rambling and nonsensical arguments. I am really interested in what accomplishments in the fields of culture, science, etc. have been created by members of an Islamic society since the 12th century? Where is your Bach or Beethoven…your Jonas Salk? What do you consider your greatest contributions to the world in terms of culture or scientific breakthroughs? If Islam is the answer, what in the world was the question?

 

[Booklover]

Writer:

I have noticed as soon as the good arguments begin, our Muslim brothers and sisters seem to dwindle and disappear entirely only to resurface again elsewhere on the forums–usually with the same rambling and nonsensical arguments. I am really interested in what accomplishments in the fields of culture, science, etc. have been created by members of an Islamic society since the 12th century? Where is your Bach or Beethoven…your Jonas Salk? What do you consider your greatest contributions to the world in terms of culture or scientific breakthroughs? If Islam is the answer, what in the world was the question?

BULLSEYE! That’s the truth! Even a child wouldn’t be taken in by their arguments.

 

[r.gonzales]

JP2Admirer:

So what you are saying then, is that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees didn’t know who Jesus was? The very men who begged Pilate to crucify Him wouldn’t recognize an imposter? Roman guards would put there own life on the line to save the life of a Galilean carpenter? These same Romans, who typically hated their outpost in Jerusalem?

“… they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. however, it was made to resemble it for them. and surely, those who differ about it are certainly in doubt about it. they do not have any knowledge of it except the following of speculation. and they did not kill him with certainty. rather, Allah raised him to Him. and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (4:157-158).

“Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He declared a matter then certainly He says to it, ‘Be.’ then it happens.” (2:117)

“and if Allah willed, certainly He could cause their hearing and their sights to leave. surely, Allah is capable of everything.” (2:20).

 

[JimG]

Looks like we are back to the “Qu’ran alone” position.

The major fault of Christianity, in Muslim eyes, is what they see as the hopeless corruption of its Scriptures: both Old Testament and New are a mishmash of myths and histories, rumors and outright lies, and thus God needed to reveal the Quran to set the record straight.

The Quran—which was revealed over the course of years—is not consistent on this, of course. In an early Quranic revelation, God tells Muhammad, “If thou wert in doubt as to what we have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading The Book [the Bible].” Only later does the Quran condemn the Bible as being filled with error.
And yet Muhammad depended, for the legitimacy of his prophetic mission, on the prophetic succession from Abraham, and thus he and modern Muslims often quote biblical passages to support Islamic arguments. Any biblical passage that does not suit Islamic purposes is, of course, inauthentic.
From, This Rock, March 1997
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703revw.asp