Matthew 27:46 and Islam

[Montalban]

I’m going to try and bring this conversation back to the original quesion. As I understand it, Muslims don’t see Jesus as the Messiah, and don’t think that Jesus actually died on the cross and was resurected.

I believe he was, and his death on the cross “satisfied” God so to speak. Jesus, being part of the trinity, paid for the sins of us all. What, if anything would “satisfy” God to allow any of us into Heaven considering that we are all sinners? How do we get to heaven if not through Jesus?

God does not *need to be *satisfied!

God needs nothing.

We are redeemed to him, not because he is a god with a ledger book counting up who’s sinned against him and who hasn’t (where he’s penciled some of us into ‘purgatory’).

God is love.

 

[paarsurrey]

As I understand it, Muslims don’t see Jesus as the Messiah, and don’t think that Jesus actually died on the cross and was resurected.

Hi

The **First Point **mentioned by you is not correct that we Muslims don’t see Jesus as the Messiah . We Muslims do see Jesus as Messiah, I quote just one such place amongst many from Quran:The Holy Quran : Chapter 5: Al-Ma’idah

[5:71] Surely We took a covenant from the Children of Israel, and We sent Messengers to them. But every time there came to them a Messenger with what their hearts desired not, they treated some as liars, and some they sought to kill.
[5:72] And they imagined that no punishment would result from their conduct, so they became blind and deaf. But Allah turned to them in mercy; yet again many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is Watchful of what they do.
[5:73] Indeed, they are disbelievers who say, ‘Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary,’ whereas the Messiah himself said, ‘O Children of Israel, worship Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord.’ Surely, whoso associates partners with Allah, him has Allah forbidden Heaven, and the Fire will be his resort. And the wrongdoers shall have no helpers.
[5:74] They surely disbelieve who say, ‘Allah is the third of three;’ there is no god but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely befall those of them that disbelieve.
[5:75] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness, while Allah is Most Forgiving and Merciful?
[5:76] The** Messiah**, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely Messengers like unto him had passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away.
[5:77] Say, 'Will you worship beside Allah that which has no power to do you harm or good? And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
[5:78] Say, ‘O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in the matter of your religion unjustly, nor follow the low desires of a people who went astray before and caused many to go astray, and who have strayed away from the right path.’
[5:79] Those amongst the Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and used to transgress.
[5:80] They did not restrain one another from the iniquity which they committed. Evil indeed was what they used to do.

Unquote

The **Second Point **as stated by you is correct that Muslim never believed that Jesus was killed a cursed killing on Cross.

The **Third Point **is also correct, that since Jesus did not get killed on Cross, so he gained consciousness from the near-dead, that is not a resurrection according to Catholics.

This is exactly what I believe, nobody is under any compulsion to believe what I believe . You are always welcome to differ with me with reasons and rational arguments.

Thanks

 

[ryanoneil]

Montalbon, How are we redeemed to God? Through Jesus?

paarsurrey, Although I disagree with you on the first point, I thank you for the explaination. Now I know your position.

 

[Montalban]

Montalbon,

I take it you mean me

How are we redeemed to God? Through Jesus?

Where have I denied this? We need God. God doesn’t need us. God is perfect and he certainly does not need ‘satisfaction’.

 

[ryanoneil]

I take it you mean me

Where have I denied this? We need God. God doesn’t need us. God is perfect and he certainly does not need ‘satisfaction’.

Sorry I spelled your name wrong. I’m not accussing you of anything. I guess I’ll have to concede to your point. This seems to be a matter of semantics.

I was simply asking HOW you think we are redeemed to God?
If it’s through Jesus, did he NEED to die on the cross?

 

[Montalban]

Sorry I spelled your name wrong. I’m not accussing you of anything. I guess I’ll have to concede to your point. This seems to be a matter of semantics.

I was simply asking HOW you think we are redeemed to God?
If it’s through Jesus, did he NEED to die on the cross?

Semantics are all important if you believe God needs to do something.

Also, the idea that God is a strict legalistic seeking to check your sins against a giant ledger also is important.

Jesus who is man saved us. He didn’t *need *to do this. We needed him to do this.

 

[swariffin]

Dear Paarsurrey, I begin to know more about Ahmadiah, and how you are different from mainstream Islam. Unfortunately, in my country, moslems somehow never discuss about Jesus (Isa) in an open discussion. The hardliners especially, conceal Isa completely. Discussion about Isa somehow is “Haram”. I do believe in my heart that they know this. But, for political reason, they refrain from it.

But, still, it never been any attempt from Pilate to save Jesus, after he lost the vote that the Jews prefer Barabas. Pilate washed his hand as a show that he did not liable for Jesus’ death. Pilate even defended his position by puting a sign “Iesus Nazaeorum Rex Iudaeorum (INRI)” on top of the cross of Jesus. Pilate insisted this wording despite protest by the Jews. This is clear that Pilate was defending his position should he be hold accountable by his emperor. Let alone, Pilate let Barabas free before sentencing Jesus to the cross. Barabas was an enemy of Rome. Why Pilate should bow to the Jews? Logically Pilate could not let Barabas free since Barabas was more dangerous to Rome as compared to Jesus. Therefore, Pilate put the sign to defend himself, that Jesus proclaim himself as the King of the Jews, which was a sign of rebellion to Rome. Such rebellion was subject to death penalty. Remember also that one of the soldier struck Jesus at his side. Definitely it would be a fatal wound. I do not believe that anybody could ever survive such kind of wound at that time. Pilate himself could not refrain away from this occassion, as emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus recalled him and ordered him to Gallia (now France) on 36AD. Pilate committed suicide there.

 

[paarsurrey]

But, still, it never been any attempt from Pilate to save Jesus.

Hi

Pilate’s wife, who was a secret follower of Jesus, saw a dream and advised her husband that she had seen a dream . It is very much mentioned in the NTBible, so that must have stuck into his heart. We cannot ignore this clue.

Thanks

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hi

Pilate’s wife, who was a secret follower of Jesus, saw a dream and advised her husband that she had seen a dream . It is very much mentioned in the NTBible, so that must have stuck into his heart. We cannot ignore this clue.

Thanks

If you accept this story, why are you so reluctant to accept others in the NT? Why do you think the Gospels are untrustworthy where it conflicts with the Quran/hadith, and not the Quran/hadith is untrustworthy? Six centuries separate the two books, and more time separates the hadith from the Gospels. The earlier work (Gospels) have been venerated and verified just as the OT has been. The Quran is at odds with all of that, and that is based upon the word of one man who came long after.

If Mohamed were a scholar of his day he might have some authority to say so with academic support, but he was not and he offers none. It is illogical to think Mohamed is correct where they contradict each other.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Pilate’s wife, who was a secret follower of Jesus, saw a dream and advised her husband that she had seen a dream . It is very much mentioned in the NTBible, so that must have stuck into his heart. We cannot ignore this clue.

Thanks

Dear Paarsurrey, a dream of Pilate’s wife was for Pilate not to engage in Jesus’ case, not to free Jesus. That dream was not necessarily pointed that Pilate’s wife was Jesus’ follower, eventhough she admitted that Jesus was a righteous man. The three wise men during Jesus babyhood had a dream from heaven, and yet they were not Jesus’ follower, although they admitted that Jesus was “a special King or King of Kings”. Off course, I do not mean that Pilate’s wife and the three wise men could not have salvation from Jesus. The Israels were freed from Babilon by the hand of King Koresh from Persia in the OT, and yet King Koresh was an infidel by Jewish standard. God can use anybody including the non believer to fulfill His will. Thanks Paarsurrey, God can use you to open my eye of other people’s view, so I may learn to become openminded.

 

[paarsurrey]

dream of Pilate’s wife .

The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 has discussed the dream of Pilate’s wife and its true interpretation. I quote here the relevant excerpt from his book Jesus in India:
alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

In addition to all this, there was another heavenly cause, namely, that when Pilate presided at his court, his wife sent word to him not to have anything to do with that righteous person (i.e., not to attempt to punish him with death), for, she said, she had had a dream that night, which had troubled her very much. So, this angel, whom the wife of Pilate saw in her dream, would assure us and all fair-minded people, with certainty, that God had never intended that Jesus should die on the Cross. From the day of the creation of this world, never has it occurred that God should suggest to a person in a dream that a particular thing would happen in a certain way, and still that thing should fail to happen.

For example, the gospel of Matthew says that an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Arise and take the young child and the mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him’. Now, can anyone say that Jesus could be killed in Egypt? Similarly the dream which the wife of Pilate dreamt was a part of God’s design, and it could never be that this design should fail in its object; and just as the possibility of Jesus being put to death during the Egyptian journey was against a specific promise of God, so here it is unthinkable that the angel of Almighty God should appear to the wife of Pilate and should direct her to say that if Jesus died on the Cross it would not be a happy thing for her, and yet the angel’s appearance should go in vain, and Jesus should be allowed to suffer death on the Cross. Is there any example of this in the world? None.

The pure conscience of all good men, when informed of the dream of Pilate’s wife, will no doubt testify that it was a fact that the purpose of that dream was to lay the foundation for the rescue of Jesus. It is of course open to everybody to deny an out-and-out truth; out of prejudice born of his creed, he may refuse to accept it, but fairness would oblige us to believe that the dream of Pilate’s wife is a piece of weighty evidence in support of Jesus’ escape from the Cross. The first in rank among the gospels, i.e., Matthew, has recorded this evidence.

Although, therefore, the powerful evidence which I shall set out in this book invalidates the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of Atonement, yet honesty and love of fairness require us not to be partial to a communal or customary creed on a question of fact. From the day of the creation of man up till to-day the limited intellect of man has invested a thousand things with Divinity and Godhead, so much so that even cats and snakes have been worshipped; nevertheless wise people, through heaven’s help, have continued to be saved from the evil of such polytheistic beliefs.
Unquote

I think now it becomes clear to you, and you understand it. It is reasonable.

Thanks

 

[Montalban]

And 'cause an Ahmadi quotes his own book, it must be right!

 

[swariffin]

Dear Paarsurrey, I believe that you are a reasonable person, that you back up your belief by research, not by blind devotion like hardliner moslems I know. Although that neither of us can change each other’s belief, I strongly convince that we can have constructive discussions (not arguments). It won’t be in vain, since at least that we can learn together from each other.

I think you may get your source from the one so-called the gospel of Pilate, which was written far after the latest of the NT text was written (second letter of Peter in 120 AD). It was approximately written on around 300 AD. Back to your posting about Jesus transfer to Egypt, it was foretold by prophet Hosea in the OT (Hosea 11:1). That is correct that God did not want Jesus to die in vain during his babyhood. During Jesus service, God venerated Jesus, as witnessed by His deciple that Jesus talked about His mission and his death with Moses and Elijah. Both Moses and Elijah were considered as great prophets. So, it was part of the mission that Jesus would die in the cross, so He could enter the realm of the death, so that death would no longer has power over human, as Jesus was risen triumphantly on the third day. Jesus escaped to Eqypt due to Herod, and humanly speaking, baby/child Jesus could be killed anywhere including in Egypt because the probability existed. But, since Jesus survived, at least til He reached the age 33, such probability was no longer valid.

About the dream of Pilate’s wife, there is no writing in the gospel suggests that an angel spoke to her. So, introducing a heavenly figure in this case is speculative, although it may sound a good one. To make it in line, we must compare it to the whole gospel, and not to take this piece of clue apart, and make a conclusion out of it. It is dangerous if anybody take a piece of statement of a verse, and make interpretations of it out of the context. [That’s why many people may misunderstood your so-called Jihad verses. You can see it yourself from other threads that you entered into]

Regarding Matthew, although it is the first book in NT, it does not mean that the gospel of Matthew rank first. In fact, no single verse in the OT nor the NT is superior with respect to other verses. It was put on the first order because Matthew gave direct linkages of Jesus service as foretold by the OT prophets. So, Matthew was considered as the bridge between OT and NT. Matthew’s gospel (80 AD) itself was written after Mark’s gospel (75 AD). [Oh yes, I read in the book of “Eyewitness to Jesus” that Thiede and D’cancona argued that the gospel of Matthew probably was written much earlier than what the scolars believe, based on the papirology supported by modern technology].

I disagee if you called the dream of Pilate’s wife as a powerful evidence that invalidates the divinity of Jesus. That is only a clue, and yet people made interpretation after adding speculations on it. A piece of clue, no matter how small it is, is a powerful evidence if, and only if, it is supported by tons of other clues which say the same thing.

 

[nonsumd]

That’s an insult. You assume because I question YOUR concept of the Trinity that I don’t understand ‘the Trinity’.

Montalban, my brother, this sounds like the way Muslims and Christians talk past each other when they discuss the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

When you ask, “How can God be alienated from Himself?,” you seem to be asking the sort of question that a Muslim would ask of a Trinitarian Christian.

Following their concept of God, Muslims cannot accept the idea of the Incarnation, the dual nature of Christ, fully god and fully man. In order to share in and redeem fallen human nature, Christ had to embrace also that feeling of being abandoned by God in the midst of suffering which is part of being a human in the fallen state. It does not mean that Jesus committed any sin to enter that condition.

It would not surprise me if spending a lot of one’s time baiting Muslims would end up focusing one more on Jesus’ divinity than on his humanity, two things which Muslims consider impossible to unite in a single being.

The Church affirms that Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time – the Son is both as a divine person inseparable from the Father and as a human person is capable of feeling separated from the Father. Exactly how this can be so is something the Church regards as a mystery that ultimately we must accept by faith.

 

[ryanoneil]

Semantics are all important if you believe God needs to do something.

Also, the idea that God is a strict legalistic seeking to check your sins against a giant ledger also is important.

Jesus who is man saved us. He didn’t *need *to do this. We needed him to do this.

We are talking about semantics.

With the coming of Jesus, the story of God’s covenant plan reaches its conclusion.

Jesus “fulfills” the promises of each of the five covenants made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David.

Each of the earlier covenants was a pledge - an oath sworn by God to do certain things. For instance, in His covenant with Noah He swore not to destroy the world by water again; he swore to Abraham that by his descendants the nations of the world would be blessed.

If God makes a covenant/promise does he NEED to keep it? YES, otherwise he contradicts his very nature. I agree that we need Him to do this for us, but He started this out of love for us, and He NEEDS to finish it.

 

[ryanoneil]

BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION

The man in the YouTube video says that Jesus wasn’t crucified on the cross, that it was made to appear that he was. Then he makes a refernce to the gospel of Barnabass. So, does anyone know what this gospel reference says, exactly? Why did the prophet Muhammed use this gospel?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, my brother, this sounds like the way Muslims and Christians talk past each other when they discuss the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Except that you assume that 'cause I don’t agree with your concept, I’m ignorant of it.

When you ask, “How can God be alienated from Himself?,” you seem to be asking the sort of question that a Muslim would ask of a Trinitarian Christian.

There you go again! I AM A TRINITARIAN CHRISTIAN!

I have nothing further to say to you. I don’t think you can help yourself.

 

[Montalban]

We are talking about semantics.

With the coming of Jesus, the story of God’s covenant plan reaches its conclusion.

Jesus “fulfills” the promises of each of the five covenants made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David.

Each of the earlier covenants was a pledge - an oath sworn by God to do certain things. For instance, in His covenant with Noah He swore not to destroy the world by water again; he swore to Abraham that by his descendants the nations of the world would be blessed.

If God makes a covenant/promise does he NEED to keep it? YES, otherwise he contradicts his very nature. I agree that we need Him to do this for us, but He started this out of love for us, and He NEEDS to finish it.

When Abraham dealt with God, do you think he understood that he was dealing with a Trinity?

a) If yes, why didn’t he write about it?
or
b) If no, then you understand that his concept of God was not fully revealed.

Any sense of God making a pact with him must be seen in that context

1 Corinthians 3:2
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

Our understanding of God may have been described in the sense of God needing to punish us/reward us, but we must now know that God does not need

If God did, he’d not be perfect. That’s the start point you must consider. God is perfect. He is love. He doesn’t need for anything. He doesn’t demand satisfaction

 

[Steve40]

So my question to both sides is why do you think Matthew 27:46 IS or IS NOT blasphemy?

It is impossible for God to blaspheme against God. It is possible for someone not to know or understand what God is saying.

But, Jesus Is God, therefore there is no way that it is blasphemy.

 

[ryanoneil]

When Abraham dealt with God, do you think he understood that he was dealing with a Trinity?

a) If yes, why didn’t he write about it?
or
b) If no, then you understand that his concept of God was not fully revealed.

Any sense of God making a pact with him must be seen in that context

1 Corinthians 3:2
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

Our understanding of God may have been described in the sense of God needing to punish us/reward us, but we must now know that God does not need

If God did, he’d not be perfect. That’s the start point you must consider. God is perfect. He is love. He doesn’t need for anything. He doesn’t demand satisfaction