My Reply to the article "Where Islam and Christianity Agree and Differ on Jesus"

[Eucharisted]

I will be quoting some of the article. I just want to point out the flaws in one man’s belief that Jesus did not die on the Cross. No, I am not trying to convince anyone that Jesus died on the Cross; all I am doing is pointing out flaws in one man’s belief.

But before I begin, I’d like to address the fact that this - my reply - is not meant to be taken completely seriously. I will be using a comical approach, mingled with fact, in my reply. So please keep that in mind.

Wilson: This view is in a sharp contrast with the statements of all the gospels. The four gospels clearly state that Jesus died on the cross. How can we reconcile this with the statement of the Qur’an which denies emphatically the death of Jesus on the cross?

Chirri: There is a way to reconcile the Qur’anic statement with the statements of the gospels: The difference between the two statements could be a difference between appearance and reality.

Chirri, I was wondering, could you describe your disbelief in Jesus’ death in a way which would insult the intelligence of the ancient Romans and of the Gospel writers? Oh, and please indirectly refer to a gnostic work falsely attributed to Saint Barnabas.

No doubt, some event had taken place at the time of what seemed to be the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross. The life of Jesus was full of miracles, and so could be what seemed to be his death. It could have been that another person (such as Judas, the one who betrayed him) was miraculously likened to him, and he, not Jesus, died on the cross.

Thanks! I see you used the Gospel of Barnabas in reference to Judas dying in Jesus’ place. However, there is a flaw in your reasoning - well, two actually. One, you refer to the gospels many times in the discussion. Now, if you’re referring to the canonical gospels, you must believe they are historical writings. Two, in the gospels, it is stated that Judas hung himself - committed suicide - before Jesus was cruicifed. So, Chirri, did Judas die in Jesus’ place or did he commit suicide? Is the Gospel of Barnabas correct or is the canonical gospels correct? You must go through either Door #1 or Door #2. Or you could pile onto your hypothesis an unhistorical assumption that Judas survived suicide and took Jesus’ place, thereby going through both Doors at the same time. But than you would be a deciever, because you would be deceiving yourself and others, and that’s what deceivers do: deception!

There is another way to reconcile the two statements without resort to assumption of any miracle: Suppose Jesus was put on the cross, and that he had fainted, so he appeared dead, while he was still alive.

Ah, the Swoon Hypothesis. Classic!

This assumption is not without evidence from the gospels:

The gospels state that Jesus did not stay very long on the cross. He was taken down hurriedly, without breaking his legs, while it was the custom to break the legs of the crucified. The Jews were preparing to celebrate Passover. They did not want him to stay on the cross until the next day, Saturday, on which they are not supposed to do any work such as burial. As Jesus did not stay too long on the cross, he could have remained alive.

The gospels state also that after Jesus appeared to be dead, a man struck at his body with a lance, and that the blood gushed out from his body. We know that blood does not flow from a dead body. This indicates that Jesus was still alive.

The gospels further state that when Jesus’ executioners went to break His legs, they saw He was already dead. But one of the soliders doubted He had died and he thrust his lance into Jesus’ side, causing blood and water to gush out. It is a medical fact that, when the body is drained of blood and water, it is dead.

(c)

 

[Eucharisted]

The gospels state that Jesus was laid in his tomb, and that a heavy stone was laid above the tomb, and that on Sunday, the body was missing, and that the stone was removed from the mouth of the tomb. We have the right to suspect that some of the disciples of Jesus removed the stone and rescued him.

Ooh, the Stolen Body Hypothesis. Another classic!

Were Jesus resurrected miraculously, there would have been no need for removal of the stone. God is able to raise him from the grave and keep the stone where it was. The removal of the stone seems to be a human, and not a Divine, work.

Actually, an angel rolled the stone away, so the women who had gone early in the morning to incense Jesus’ body - in accordance to Jewish burial - could enter the tomb and see that the body was missing, but find two angels who declared Jesus is risen, then run to the disciples to tell them about it, who in turn would go to the tomb and find it empty as well, and believe (though with doubts) that Jesus is risen. It’s in the gospels.

In addition to this, the gospels state that Jesus appeared several times to his disciples after the event of crucifixion. All these appearances seemed to have taken place in secrecy, and that Jesus was not willing to appear openly. Were he miraculously resurrected, he would not have had to hide from his enemies. The secrecy of his appearances indicates that he was still living as he did before, and that his life was not interrupted by a short death, and that he was still afraid of the pursuit of his enemies.

Actually, Jesus appeared to over five hundred people, in public, as Paul tells us, and He appeared to His disciples in the Upper Room, on the shore of Galilee, to Mary Magdalen at His tomb, and to two disciples on their way home. Now, the appearances in the Upper Room and on the shore of Lake Galilee could techinically be called secret. But the other appearances cannot. And if Paul is lying, than I wonder how credible his letters are? If the Bible includes even one book filled with lies or errors, than it can’t be taken seriously or be used as historical evidence - yet here you are quoting (albeit incorrectly) from the gospels, four books found in the Scriptures.

The international society of the Holy Shroud has recently concluded that the stains of blood on the shroud of Jesus indicate that Jesus was still living when he was taken down from the cross. Otherwise, there would be no blood on the sheet which covered his body afterwards.

Oh, so now you’re a science expert, Chirri? You suddenly have more knowledge of the Holy Shroud than all the scientists who have ever examined it? You suddenly can say it belonged to Jesus? Well, I’d like to see your evidence. I’d also like to see the evidence for your claim that blood on a shroud which belonged to a crucified man proves Jesus was still alive in the tomb.

Now, please make a statement on Christianity which would insult Christian intelligence and theology.

A Christian, believing in the crucifixion of Jesus, would have a hard time reconciling two of the principles in which he believes, namely: Jesus is God, and Jesus was crucified. A crucified person cannot be God because he is unable to protect himself, let alone be almighty.

Thanks! Now please make a statement about Muslims being better off than Christians - so to speak - because they don’t believe Jesus is God.

A Muslim, on the other hand, does not have such a problem. He believes that Jesus is a prophet and no more. A prophet may be persecuted and crucified, because a prophet is not supposed to be almighty. Although Islam does not have the problem of contradiction, it has solved the problem which it does not have. Jesus was not crucified. God had protected him.

Thanks again! And I like how you state that Islam “dose not have the problem of contradiction,” when in fact Islam contradicts the canonical gospels many times, as you’ve just demonstrated.

 

[Eucharisted]

Bump