Muslim Version of the Events Surrounding Jesus’ Conviction

[George_Waters]

Christianity teaches that Jesus came to be our Savior, to be the final sacrifice for our sins and by His death on the cross we can be forgiven and reconciled to God forever. The Bible recounts how Jesus was resurrected and appeared to his disciples bearing the wounds of his crucifixion.

Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God who was sent to spread the word of God and though sentenced to death was spared execution by God who made it appear to the enemies of Jesus that He in fact was put to death though He was bodily assumed into heaven by God.

I know neither faith fully accepts the accounts of the other faith if they are accepted at all. Most Christians believe Mohammed and his companions made up Islam based on Jewish and Christian writings and teachings and Muslims believe the Bible was corrupted by men with personal agendas contrary to the true teachings of God.

Assuming the above assertions are correct I am curious as why Muslims think the biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion, death, resurrection and subsequent appearance to his disciples would need to be changed by anyone and to what end? What would be gained by saying He was executed, but was resurrected?
And changed by whom? Certainly not the apostles, the majority of them went to their deaths, very painful deaths, proclaiming the Jesus was Lord and that they had faithfully and accurately proclaimed the truth of His life, death and resurrection.

While a 20th/21st century mind may more easily, albeit superficially, accept the Islamic version than the Christian one, I can not figure out why men who knew Jesus better than anyone on earth (with the exception of His mother) would joyfully go to their deaths proclaiming something that they would know was not true. It could not have been altered during their lives without their knowledge (and would not explain their eagerness to die for the message at any rate) so if it was altered it would have had to be after their deaths. The fact that the biblically account agrees with the apostles actions eliminates the possibility of it being altered after their deaths.

Would any of our Muslim friends like to address the above questions and offer a possible explanation?

Thanks.

Peace,

George

 

[r.gonzales]

greetings george,
George Waters:

Would any of our Muslim friends like to address the above questions and offer a possible explanation?

Thanks.

i’ve been meaning to post a reply to your question, but as of yet haven’t had time to just sit down and write what i was intending to. i have however, already transcribed an excerpt from a book that i’ve been reading that i wanted to share with you concerning this topic. when i get a chance to finish proof-reading it from my typos, i’ll find a way to post it up (either as an attacked word document or some other way), along with some of what the scholars of islam have said regarding this issue.

i wanted to post this for the time being so that you wouldn’t think that your question has been ignored.

regards…

 

[George_Waters]

Thank you r.gonzales. I look forward to your post!

Peace,

George

 

[r.gonzales]

greetings.

to george, my apologies for taking so long to post a reply… for others reading this, i want to note at the start of this post that the points i mention are not mentioned for the purpose of debate on the specific points of muslim belief, but i’ve mentioned them in order to give a general overview of muslim belief in order to help answer george’s question with respect to the muslim point of view concerning the biblical account of the crucifixion and the testimonies of the apostles attesting its occurrence.

while what george has mentioned regarding islamic teachings is generally correct i wanted to quote a couple of Quranic passages which describe what he’s mentioned here.

Allah says, “so when jesus sensed the disbelief from them he said, ‘who are my helpers to Allah?’ the hawaariyyoon said, ‘we are Allah’s helpers, we believe in Allah and we testify that we are muslims. * our Lord, we believe in what is revealed and we follow the messenger (jesus) so write us amongst the witnesses.’ * and they planned and Allah planned and Allah is the best of planners. * when Allah said, 'o jesus, I will take you and raise you to Me and purify you from those who disbelieved. I will make those who followed you above those who disbelieved until the day of standing (i.e., judgement day). then your return is to Me, so I will judge betwen you in what you differred in.” (3:52-55).

He also says, “and their saying, ‘we killed the messiah, jesus bin maryam, Allah’s messenger,’ while they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. but it was made to seem so for them. and surely, those who differred regarding it are certainly in doubt about it. they do not have knowledge of it except the following of conjecture and they did not kill him with certainty. * rather, Allah raised him to Him and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (4:157-158).

other than what is mentioned here, i do not know of anything else mentioned in the Quran or sunnah with specific details regarding the crucifixion or jesus’ being raised up to the heavens. everything else mentioned regarding the incident is pretty much speculation – and that includes the various stories related in the books of tafseer concerning it, and Allah knows best.

as for your question regarding the muslims’ view of the biblical account of what occurred, i can’t comment much regarding jesus’ true followers and companions, as muslims are obligated to believe that they were his faithful companions and righteous servants of Allah, as is mentioned in the first passage i quoted. just who the “hawaariyyoon” were however, Allah knows best, as there isn’t much mentioned in the islamic texts concerning their identities or who they actually were. what we muslims believe is that somewhere along the line, jesus’ teachings were corrupted and changed by someone or some people. the great muslim scholar ahmad bin taimiyyah has a refutation on the religion of christianity entitled “al-jawaab as-saheeh li man baddala deen al-maseeh” which translates to, “the correct reply to the one who changed the religion of the messiah”. from the little i’ve read of the tiny portions that have been translated from it (i have yet to get my hands on the complete arabic text in hardcopy) it seems that it’s mainly directed at paul of antioch. and according to many muslims, he’s the one blamed for corrupting and changing the teachings of jesus and his true followers (again, i should note that this is not mentioned in order to argue or debate this point, only to shed light on the muslim perspective concerning the biblical account of the crucifixion and the numerous testimonies attesting to its occurrence).

now, all the debate about the authenticity of the biblical accounts and whether or not the authors of the gospel did in fact meet and know jesus aside, what is definite in islamic teachings is that jesus was not killed, that he did not die on the cross and that it was made to seem as if he did. other than that, like i said, pretty much all else mentioned regarding the incident amounts to conjecture, just as is mentioned in the second of the Quranic passages i quoted at the beginning.

with that kept in mind, from the muslim perspective, there are indications in the biblical passages themselves that support the definite muslim position regarding the incident i.e., that jesus was not killed, that he did not die on the cross, though it was made to seem as if he did.

the first passages that come to mind are those concerning jesus’ trial and the release of the prisoner named “jesus barabbas”. i’m pretty sure many of you are aware of the discussion surrounding these biblical verses and the name “barabbas” in particular and its meaning, so i won’t go into detail about it and suffice with its brief mention here. this is one possible explanation; that the “real” jesus was released and the “wrong” jesus was crucified in his place.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

another possible explanation side from this, is what muhammad mohar ali mentions in his book, “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists” regarding the crucifixion and jesus’ death in vol. 1a of the book and i’ve transcribed it for posting here on the forum.

Regarding the Crucifixion[1]
Similarly in its reference to the end of Jesus’s career the Qur’ân does in no way reproduce a popular “mistake”. On the contrary it asserts that the popular saying (qawluhum قولهم ) about it is a mistake. The ’âyah which refers to the matter runs as follows:
﴿ وقولم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه لكن شه لهم وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ا لهم به من علم إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا﴾ (4:157 )
“And as for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture and they killed him not for certain.” (4:157)

Clearly the passage sets out to contradict their saying, i.e. the saying of the Jews; for the whole narration here is about the Jews. The contradiction is made in a very positive manner. It is stated that they did not kill him, nor did they really crucify him. It is further stated that they, while claiming to have killed Jesus, themselves entertained doubts about it. The allusion is here to their doubts about the identity of the individual they put the cross.[2] The passage then says that it was made to appear like that to them ( شبه لهم ), i.e., Jesus’s having been crucified and killed in that manner was an incorrect impression or illusion to them and that they had no real knowlege of what actually happened but followed only a certain conjecture. The passage ends with an emphatic reiteration that “they did not kill him for certain.”

It may be noted that even some early Christian sects did not believe that Jesus die on the cross. Thus the Basilidans thought that some one else was substituted for him on the cross. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supports the theory of substitution on the cross. Another view, that of the Diocetae, says that Jesus had never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom one, and that his crucifixion was only apparent, not real. A yet another view, that of the Marcionite Gospel, says that Jesus was not even born but merely appeared in human form.

It cannot be said that in denying Jesus’s crucifixion and death on the cross the Qur’ân adopts the view of any of the above mentioned Christian sects; for it categorically rejects the very basis of those views, namely, the divinity of Jesus and the theory of his phantom body. Rather, in view of the doubts and differences prevailing over the matter, it categorically asserts the truth and positively contradicts the Jews’ assertion ( وقولهم ) that they had killed Jesus. The position is quite different from that of mere reproduction of a prevailing erroneous view. In fact, the Qur’ânic statement is directed against the Jews as well as the Christians. It contradicts the former’s assertion that they had killed Jesus and that therefore he was not a Prophet because he suffered what is called an “accursed death”. Similarly it rejects the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus and that of “vicarious atonement” and its basis, the concept of “blood sacrifice”.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

con’t…

The Qur’ânic statement that “they killed him not for certain” finds support even in the Bible itself. Thus:
(1) Jesus had prayed to God the night before his arrest to be saved from the accursed death on the cross (Mark 14:36; Matt. 26:39; Luke 22-44) and that his prayer was heard, i.e., reponded to (He. 5:7). This means that he did not intend to die and that God did not allow his being subjected to the accursed death.
(2) There is nothing in the Gospels which may be taken to be an eye-witness account that the person crucified was dead when he was taken down from the cross or when he was placed in the sepulchre specially made for him.
(3) Pilate, who was in charge of the trial, appears to have grown skeptical about the justice of the whole preceedings and to have taken care to enable Jesus to escape death on the cross. The trial took place on Friday. Pilate purposely prolonged it and delivered judgement only three hours before sun-set, thus ensuring that Jesus could not be kept on the cross for more than three hours (Mark 15:25; John 19:14). This was evidently too short a time for any person of normal constitution to die on a cross. Significantly enough the two other persons who were crucified simultaneously with Jesus are stated to have been alive when they were brought down from their crosses. Pilate himself did not believe that Jesus died in so short a time (Mark 15:44)
(4) After being taken down from the cross the two other men’s legs were crushed, but this measure was not dispensed with, according to the Bible, in the case of Jesus (John 19:32,33).
(5) Jesus, after being brought down from the cross, was pierced in the side of his body and blood rushed out of it (John 19:34), which shows that he was still alive.
(6) Pilate readily granted Joseph of Arimaethia’s request and handed over Jesus’s “body” to him. He lavished care on Jesus and put him in a special tomb hewn in the side of a rock (Mark 15:46); which was evidently a manoeuver to deceive Jesus’s enemies.
(7) On the third day the stone on the tomb’s opening was found to have been removed (Mark 16:4), which proves that it had been removed previously, probably on the first or second day of the internment.
(8) Mary Magdalene when she looked into the sepulchre, did not find Jesus there. She saw him standing and at first supposed “him to be the gardener”. Then,
“17. Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, and Your Father; and to my God and your God. 18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 19. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.” (John 20:14-15,17-20)
(9) It was in the same body of flesh that the disciples saw Jesus, his wounds still deep enough for man to thrusthis hand in (John 20:25-28)
(10) He was seen in the same flesh and bone. He still felt hunger and ate food as his disciples did.
"36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, peace be unto you. 37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39. Behold my hands and my feet, that is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40. And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his feet. 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them. Have ye here any meat? 42. And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43. And he took it, and did eat before them.” (Luke 24:36-43)
(11) Jesus undertook a journey to Galilee where his disciples saw him (Matt. 28:10-17).

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

con’t…

All these statements in the different Gospels strongly support the Qur’ânic verdict: “they killed him not for certain.” Indeed, the above mentioned Gospel statements clearly suggest that Jesus escaped both death on the cross and therefore avoided being discovered by his enemies.

It is worth nothing in this connection that recent research confirms that Jesus did not suffer death on the cross. Thus Barbara Thiering, an Austrailian scholar, has demonstrated convincingly, on a meticulous analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Jesus did not die on the cross.[3] Almost simultaneously two European scholars, Holger Kersten and Elmar E. Gruber, have assiduously pursued the story of the radicarbon test carried out on the famous “Turin Shroud”[4] and have shown at Jesus did not die on the cross.[5] The end of Jesus is indeed a difficult historical and theological question; and it would just not be appropriate to cut it short, as Watt does,[6] by calling the Qur’ânic statement on it a popular error picked up from the bazaar gossips of Makka or Bosra.

---

Notes:
[1] Muhammad Mohar Ali. Sirat al-Nabi r and the Orientalists, vol. 1A, pgs. 297-301.
[2] See for instance Al-Tabarî, Tafsîr, Pt. VI, 15-17.
[3] Barbara Thiering. Jesus the man, (first published 1993), Corgi edition, 1993. See especially the back-cover page.
[4] The shroud discovered at Turin and believed to be the garment with which Jesus was covered when placed in the sepulchre.
[5] Holger Kerten & Elmar R. Gruber. The Jesus Conspiracy The Turin Shroud and the Truth about the Resurrection, Element Books Ltd, Shaftesbury, 1994.
[6] Watt, Muhammad’s Mecca, 45-46.

 

[George_Waters]

Thank you r.gonzales! I appreciate your posts and will re-read them again this evening (with less distraction), God willing. Thank you for offering an Islamic perspective.

On a side note I am surprised you choose to use Barbara Thiering as a source to support Islam when she denies the virgin birth, which I believed was also taught by Islam.

Peace,

George

 

[r.gonzales]

George Waters:

On a side note I am surprised you choose to use Barbara Thiering as a source to support Islam when she denies the virgin birth, which I believed was also taught by Islam.

you are correct, the Quran does mention the virgin birth of jesus. however, i wasn’t the one using her as a source. all of what was contained in the quote was from muhammad mohar ali’s “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists” and i believe he was only citing her work with specific regard to her analysis of the dead sea scrolls and what it contained of the account of the crucifixion.

i should mention here that i don’t exactly agree with everything that was mentioned by ali in the quote i posted. the Quran is explicit in stating that jesus was not crucified. now, how that is to be interpreted i.e., whether it means that he was hung on the cross but did not die on the cross or that he was not hung on the cross at all, Allah knows best. but personally, i take it at face value and hold it to mean the latter. i simply posted what ali wrote to give a possible explanation and a one of the muslim perspectives on the biblical account of the incident.

regards…

 

[Shenango]

As-Salamu 'Aleikum Ryan,

Some excellent posts there…but I would just like to throw this in about Ali’s analysis. His bulleted points start off well (about the first two), but then he goes downhill off a cliff from there.

I hate how quite a few Muslim authors feel the need to explain the entire post-Crucifixion events in the Gospels in a way so that the people who lived at the time could have thought they were true, though they weren’t.

See George, most Muslims, in accordance with the most sound reading of Qur’an 4:157, believe that Jesus (PBUH) never made it to the cross. But there is a minority which holds to a heretical view developed by Ahmad Deedat called “Swoon Theory”, which basically says that Jesus (PBUH) was actually crucified, but only played dead on the cross, and that he wasn’t really dead when taken down and buried, and was later seen alive because he was rescued by his disciples.

This weak-minded approach seeks to apologize for the crucifixion stories presented in the Gospels as historical fact, and to reconcile them with what the Qur’an says.

But it can’t be done, and ostensibly, even the Muslims who believe in Swoon Theory still believe the Bible is corrupt. But if that’s the case, why not just come out and say so in this case, rather than all this roundabout swoon mess? It does nothing except create confusion about whether Muslims believe the Bible to be corrupt or not. Reading Ali’s account, you’re left with that impression at the beginning, but by the end, all his attempted apologetics and rationalization of what the Bible says leave one with the opposite view.

Arrgghh…that’s a mini rant there, but I have run into this methodology so often online, and I hate it for its falsehood and confusion.

 

[George_Waters]

r.gonzales

It seems to me, based on what you have posted; that Islam disregards or ignores what the apostles of Jesus said about Him. Islam does view Jesus as a major prophet (Correct?) and you would think what his closest companions (those whom are viewed by Muslims as Muslim) said and did in His name would be deemed worthy of being recorded by Muslims. In your opinion why do you think so little is mentioned of the companions of Jesus?

My apologizes, I did not mean to say you used Barbara Thiering as a source, just that you quoted a source that cited her.

I do not agree with all of Muhammad Mohar Ali accretions either so we share some common ground!

Sheango,

You said that the post-crucifixion events are not true. Aside from the Quran and your own faith can you cite a source that supports your belief? I am not asking you to defend yourself, but I can not see what would be gained by making up these events. Most Jews had rejected Jesus as the Messiah as He did not fit into their pre-conceptions and why would the apostles die for a lie? I recently read that deathbed statements are typically accepted as legal because of the belief that the dying have no reason to lie. Why would the apostles lie or how could these events be corrupted yet still support the apostles statements and actions?

I have not doubted that most Muslims believe Jesus never made it to the cross and I know we all have things that frustrate us so your “mini-rant” is understandable. For what it is worth while I disagree with the claim that Jesus did not die on the cross (Agree to disagree?) I also reject “swoon theory”.

Thank you both.

Peace,

George

 

[r.gonzales]

Shenango:

As-Salamu 'Aleikum Ryan,

wa 'alaikum assalaamu wa rahmatullah. btw, the “r” in my user name isn’t for ryan, it’s for rasheed .

as for your reply, i include myself in the “many muslims” that jesus was not put on the cross. as for muhammad mohar ali and what he states in the quote i presented, i do not know if this is the actual opinion he holds regarding the matter, or if he was just merely presenting the biblical text to show that the biblical accounts do in fact support the islamic belief that jesus did not die on the cross. however, from what i gathered from the manner in which he’s presented it, it’s more the latter than the former, and Allah knows best.

with that said however, i wouldn’t exactly that such interpretations are false and completely invalid; after all one of the definitions for “crucified” is “to die on the cross by means of crucifixion”. the theory does hold some water when compared to the biblical texts and is also in-line with one of the possible interpretations of the Quranic texts regarding the matter. what’s for certain is that Allah did not allow jesus to die on the cross and that he was raised to the heavens. the details of what exactly transpired however have been kept from our knowledge just as Allah says, “they have no knowledge of it except the following of conjecture.” (4:158), which is why i stated in post #4 that everything else mentioned regarding the incident from an islamic perspective is nothing but speculation.

in any case, as i mentioned, this was only posted up to give some insight to the possible explanations regarding the biblical account of the incident. another explanation is what al-haafidh ibn katheer mentions in his tafseer regarding the incident. Allah willing, if i have time, i will post that explanation up as well sometime in the near future.

 

[AquinasXVI]

It’s interesting that a self proclaimed account around 600 or so years after the fact is deemed by millions of people to be more accurate than eyewitness accounts.

in XT.

 

[Shenango]

As-Salamu 'Aleikum,

r.gonzales:

wa 'alaikum assalaamu wa rahmatullah. btw, the “r” in my user name isn’t for ryan, it’s for rasheed .

Oops! Sorry for botching your name! I work with an “R. Hernandez” (which sounds similar) all the time…so maybe that’s why I read it wrong. Please accept my apologies.

with that said however, i wouldn’t exactly that such interpretations are false and completely invalid; after all one of the definitions for “crucified” is “to die on the cross by means of crucifixion”. the theory does hold some water when compared to the biblical texts and is also in-line with one of the possible interpretations of the Quranic texts regarding the matter.

You seem to have a much more forgiving view of swoon theory, which is I guess where we’ll have to disagree in the matter. I’m much less so because I’ve seen the massive confusion it causes non-Muslims, and the way it makes Muslims look and sound duplicitous.

While such attempts to keep in line with the Biblical accounts of the crucifixion are interesting to ponder, they are pointless from a practical perspective (and I’m a very practical mind) when it comes to polemical arguments. It forces Muslims into arguments and debates with Christians about things whether like when the centurion punctured Jesus’ side with his spear what poured out indicates he was still alive or dead. What’s the point of such debates when most of the Muslims who get bogged down in them believe Jesus (PBUH) never made it to the cross in the first place? The questions become moot, and these debates totally pointless. I abhorr such argumenation to death.

As for the interpretation of 4:157, while it’s true that one of the definitions of “crucifixion” is punishment by death on a cross, the actual act of crucifying refers to the nailing of someone onto a cross. And it it is “crucify” that the Qur’an uses. It’s kind of odd to think that someone who was nailed to a cross and sat there for most of a day, but was taken down at the last minute and lived could claim he or she wasn’t crucified. Would this really be an honest potrayal?

The other thing that swoon theorists fail to emphasize is the fact that the verse goes on to say “nor did they kill him”. If the word “crucify” in and of itself was intended to mean killing as well as nailing to the cross, then saying “nor did they kill him” is redundant and superfluous: nobody among all those who claim Jesus (PBUH) was killed ever believed it was anything except by crucifixion. So why say “they did not [kill] him, nor did they kill him”?

Since “killing” Jesus (PBUH) in the historical context would have necessarily meant by crucifixion, the Qur’an’s separate refutation of the claim that the Jews did crucify Jesus (PBUH) must mean that “crucify” refers only to the act of nailing him on the cross.

You may disagree with me, but I find any other than the literal reading warped in this case.

 

[Neverland]

Actually, there are some moslems who believed that Jesus was killed (or at least dead), based on these verses:

3: 56. Remember the time when Allah said’ `O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and will raise thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to ME shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.

5:118. `I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou, hast been the Watcher over them, and Thou art Witness over all things;

Have anyone taken those verses into account?

 

[Faith101]

Actually, there are some moslems who believed that Jesus was killed (or at least dead), based on these verses:

Both the verse numbers and the translation is wrong, who translated those?

The Quran clearly states

"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:- (Quran 4:157)

As for the verses:

3: 56. Remember the time when Allah said’ `O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and will raise thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to ME shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.

It is actually 3:55, and it says:

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

5:118. `I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou, hast been the Watcher over them, and Thou art Witness over all things;

It’s 5:117 and it says:

Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, ‘worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

Thus Barbara Thiering, an Austrailian scholar, has demonstrated convincingly, on a meticulous analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Jesus did not die on the cross.

r.gonzales:

i believe he was only citing her work with specific regard to her analysis of the dead sea scrolls and what it contained of the account of the crucifixion.

Barbara Theiring has not demonstrated this convincingly. Her analysis is very bad. It is highly likely, if not certain, that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus at all.

Read the following quote from Doug Grootius’ book “Jesus in an Age of Controversy”, which is cited in this article by Glenn Miller christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html

[underline emphasis mine]

"Most controversially, Thiering claims that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem but at Qumran, along with Simon Magus (see Acts 8) and Judas Iscariot. All three somehow failed to die on their crosses and were revived in their tombs, with Jesus receiving lifesaving medicinal assistance from Simon Magus. Thus, Jesus never rose from the dead as the divine Savior and Lord. He simply survived the crucifixion, and “it is probable that he died of old age in seclusion in Rome” after A.D. 64. She dismisses the traditional New Testament evidence and quotes a third-century Gnostic source (The Gospel of Philip) that claims that Jesus did not die on the cross. Christianity must give up its supernatural claims and adjust itself to Thiering’s non-supernatural explanations. The idea of the supernatural is for “babes in Christ” who cannot handle the hard facts.

"Does Thiering’s daring reconstruction of Christian history give us any reason to abandon historic Christianity? New Testament scholar N.T. Wright notes that “the only scholar who takes Thiering’s theory with any seriousness is Thiering herself.” There are many reasons for scholars to reject her.

"First, Thiering’s entire argument depends on an idiosyncratic dating of the scrolls themselves. We have argued that there is no good reason to date the scrolls as late as she does in order to allow them to refer to Jesus. If this is true, then the scrolls could not be speaking of Jesus and John the Baptist at all, since they were not yet born. Wright comments that “this of itself would be enough, in fact, to bring the whole structure toppling down.”’

“Second, although Thiering correctly observes that the Qumran community used the pesher method to find itself referred to in certain Hebrew scriptures, this method was never used in writing the history of the community itself. As Wright notes, the pesher method “was a way of hooking in to the past, not of writing quite new works for the future.”” This style of interpretation was “a way of saying ‘we are the people spoken of by the prophets,’ not 'we are the people who can set new crossword puzzles for others to solve.”" If this code was employed to interpret the Gospels and Acts, we would expect to discover some ancient writings to back up this point. Thiering provides no such evidence. She simply asserts her pesher interpretations. Neither does she attempt to explain why this pesher understanding of the Gospels and Acts was supposedly lost.’ Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the Gospels and Acts are written in some secret code language.

"Third, Thiering’s claim that Jesus had children rests on material from late and unreliable Gnostic documents and tortuous misinterpretations of New Testament passages. For instance, she interprets Acts 6:7, which says “The Word of God increased,” to mean that Jesus’ family grew larger.’ Of course, the book of Acts is the history of the early church after the resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven (Acts 1:1-11). Jesus’ “family” increases as people accept him as Lord, not as he physically fathers children. When Luke writes that “the Word of God increased,” he means that God’s truth was received by more and more people, as is clear from the rest of the verse: “The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” The idea of Jesus divorcing and remarrying is similarly unhistorical and illogical.’

"Fourth, Thiering is not even consistent in applying her far-flung innovations. She abandons the pesher method in her account of Jesus’ crucifixion and subsequent appearances. As Wright notes, “Granted her own method, this ought to have been ‘code’ for Jesus’ demotion within the community and then his promotion to high office once more. Instead, she resorts to a laughably incredible retelling of the story.”’

I highly recommend this article by Glenn Miller for more information on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[discipleofJesus]

From what I understand, in Islam, the ‘swoon theory’ is held to only by the heretical Ahmadiyya sect. Also, Ahmed Deedat, who so many Muslims seem to regard highly, seemed to believe it is true and propagated it so much that many Sunni Muslims and other Muslims who are not Ahmadiyya believe the ‘swoon theory’ is true.

Christians have thoroughly refuted the ‘swoon theory’.

One example would be
‘The Crucifixion of Christ:
A Fact, not Fiction’ by John Gilchrist
answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/crucifixion.html

 

[inJESUS]

lets have some logic here. Why would allah put someone else on the cross that looks like Jesus?? why did the poor guy have to die for something Jesus said and did not himself? is allah fair to this poor man? and how come the man didnt shout : hey ! why are you crucifying me? am not Jesus! and why would allah allow this incident to happen, thus deluding the millions of christians? and who knew this fact? mohammad…so allah the schemer laughed out loud looking at christians and knowing they believe in something that he himseld did as a trick?? who dod this trick serve?? of course not millions of christians…and why did the apostles die ? did they have a miss illusion of seeing the resurrected Jesus? and why did this hallucination stay for only 40 days ?and what about the jews who confess killing the “historical” jesus?? shall we forget thousands of people christians, pagans and jews to believe an arab who came 600 years after the eyewitnesses?? nop. Mohammad used the term “nasara” to refer to a heretical christian sect in arabia. nasara are NOT Christians. Go read the book : quran, daawa nasrania to know who mohammad was and where he stole his info from. anyway there is enough evidence that he stole from apocryphal bibles like the incidents of Jesus speaking as a baby, and making a bird out of clay, and Mary eating dates while pregnant with Jesus…go see mohammad the robber before you take seriously any word he said.

 

[discipleofJesus]

discipleofJesus:

Doug Grootius’ book “Jesus in an Age of Controversy”

should be Douglas Groothuis’ book “Jesus in an Age of Controversy”