The Quran and Jesus’ Crucifixion

[De_Maria]

There is no way to confirm that:

The angel spoke to the virgin Mary. She was the only witness.

Well, let’s see. She told St. Luke what the Angel said would happen. She would have a child and He would be known as the Son of God.

9 months later, Jesus Christ was born. And during His life on earth, He performed many miracles and left many signs to prove that He is the Son of God.

Mohammed never even completed the one thing he was purportedly, instructed to do, the Quran.

Same for the transfiguration.

On the contrary, Peter, James and John were present. And again, this is one of a ream of miracles that Jesus Christ performed in front of many witnesses.

Oh, and no witnesses at all climbed to the resurrection.

But thousands witnessed the Resurrected Christ.

There is no way to confirm that the New Testament writings are actually the ones first written down. (And lots of reasons to believe they are not)

We know we don’t have the originals. But there’s a vast difference between Catholicism and Islam in this regard.

1st. Islam is a religion of the book. Therefore, you would think that they would not be sloppy with the book. And yet, they were not merely sloppy, but downright destructive.
a. Mohammed left the writings in shambles, written on bits and pieces of discarded materials and scattered all over the country.
b. When he died, his followers could not make heads or tails of the mess.
c. So, the mess was DESTROYED.
d. And it was replaced by someone’s version which was rejected by the community and he had to impose it BY FORCE.

Compared to:

1. We are a people of the WORD OF GOD.
2. An angel appeared to Mary and told her she would become the mother of God. God would take flesh in her womb.
3. The child who was born grew up and did many wonderful things.
4. He grew up an established a Church and told them to Teach the His Word to the whole world.
5. The Church wrote down the message in what is known as the New Testament.
6. The New Testament is based on the Teaching of Jesus Christ.
7. And He said that He would always be with the Church, to protect that message.
8. We know that we don’t have the original writings. But we still have the Church, passing down the same message and Teaching the same Word. And the thousands upon thousands of versions of the Bible which we have, only differ between each other by less than 1%.
   And those differences do not constitute a violation nor contradiction of the meaning of the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
9. And if some people misunderstand the message, we have an authority to set them straight. The Magisterium.

There’s no comparison.

 

[arthra]

Well the topic here as I understand it was “the Qur’an and Jesus’ crucifixion”. I have a perspective on this I’m willing to share here. By stressing the issue that Jesus was physically crucified… and that His Spirit ascended reconciles Muslims and Christians …

Read Surih 4 verse 157:

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:-

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali

and we read in Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157… while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed…but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke…

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

…and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, “Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit” with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46

So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur’an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

There are translations that mention a substitute as in

Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:

And because they said, “We have killed the Messiah, Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah” they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him.

So to me it’s an issue of interpretation.

The Arabic word in question is “Shubbiha” and means

it was made to appear (so)
for more information:

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=$bh#(4:157:15)

To summarize we find that the Qur’an says martyrs are not “dead” and that those who think they had slain Jesus were wrong and that His spirit ascended to God.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well the topic here as I understand it was “the Qur’an and Jesus’ crucifixion”. I have a perspective on this I’m willing to share here. By stressing the issue that Jesus was physically crucified… and that His Spirit ascended reconciles Muslims and Christians …

Jesus demonstrated a bodily resurrection, the Gospels report it as a bodily resurrection and the Church has always taught that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

It isn’t up to us to revise historical events, eyewitness testimony and revealed truths in order to reconcile ourselves with the Qur’an that was written hundreds of years later from a loosely connected set of notes purportedly about what one individual dreamed in a cave all by himself.

Sorry, human beings have no such authority to revise or reshape the truth merely to make it compatible with a differing view.

This takes us back to which can make the stronger case, the NT Gospels and their corroboration with historical events as explicated by Church teaching or the collection of scattered notes (Qur’an) dictated to his followers by one man claiming he had had a revelation from God while all by himself in a cave.

 

[arthra]

Thanks Harry for your post! Yes I’ve heard of the Church doctrine. I was focusing on the Qur’an here.

 

[mhmtas63]

Koran say Jesus did not die on the cross that not say Jesus will not die. According to Islam Jesus will come back on the world and will die as a human. God is one. Except God every body is temporal.

 

[Cthompson]

Koran say Jesus did not die on the cross that not say Jesus will not die. According to Islam Jesus will come back on the world and will die as a human.

Correct, Muslims believe Jesus will die 40 days after he returns.
Jesus speaks as a baby and says, “Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!” (Sura 19:34). Notice he follows a chronological order: he is born, he dies, and he rises.

Muslims believe Jesus was born, ascends into heaven, and then comes back and dies. If this is true, why does Jesus not say that when he speaks from the manger? According to this logic, he should have spoken that he will be born, rise, and then die. Yet, he speaks following the Christian narrative of birth, death, and resurrection.

 

[mhmtas63]

Quran(Allah,God) say they did not kill Him:

1. And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. An-Nisa(4)

Is that not clear?

And God say Jesus was ascend after that cross case.

1. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. An-Nisa(4)

So there is no death of Jesus in that case.

Quran does not declare turn of Jesus clearly. Perhaps verse did imply the second arise of Jesus after death. Because all souls are arise after death and Jesus was not die through cross.

If Jesus had arised from death so He would say that very clearly. Is there any statement by Jesus?

 

[mhmtas63]

Quran is miracle(has evidences that prove Quran is directly word of God) and there is no any contrariety in it.

 

[Cthompson]

there is no any contrariety in it.

Quran is directly word of God

Are you arguing there is no contradiction in the Quran? And that if it is the direct word of God, there will be no errors?

“Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him; be He forgives anything else”. (Sura 4:48)
“The people of the Book…worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them [idolatry]; even so We forgave them”. (Sura 4:153)

“Those who believe and those who are Jews, and Sabeans, and Christians…there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they greive”. (Sura 5:69)
“And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam…will be a loser in the Hereafter”. (Sura 3:85)
“…from among the people of the Scriptures [Jews and Christians]…will abide in the Fire of Hell”. (Sura 98:6)
So are Jews and Christians to never greive or spend all eternity in hell?

“Nor is it the word of Satan”. (Sura 81:25)
“But Allah abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations”. (Sura 22:52)
So, the Quran never contains the words of Satan ,yet Satan interjects in the word?

“He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then He turned to the heaven”. (Sura 2:29)
“He raised the height of thereof and ordered it [heaven]…and after that He spread the earth”. (Sura 79)
Earth was created first then heaven…or heaven was created first then earth?

“We cast him [Jonah] forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness”. (Sura 37:145)
“Had not Grace from his Lord reached him [Jonah], he would have been cast off on the shore”. (Sura 68)
Jonah was or was not cast on the shore?

 

[arthra]

There are really at least two interpretations of the Qur’anic verse 4:157 as I posted above the one I posted was it appeared to them that they had slain Him:

"…they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them…"

which to me suggests they thought by crucifying Him they had “killed” Him meaning ended His Cause. Later His Cause was revived and the disciples took up hope and spread the Gospel.

The other interpretation is that a substitute was found to replace Him:

“…And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them.”

I believe this is a faulty interpretation. So some say it was Judas or maybe Simon of Cyrene replaced Him and this I would suggest means someone died for Him on the cross.

Once again recall the verse I cited above referring to Martyrs in Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

Jesus would be the supreme Martyr being crucified.

 

[mhmtas63]

Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him; be He forgives anything else”. (Sura 4:48)

“The people of the Book…worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them [idolatry]; even so We forgave them”. (Sura 4:153)

Quran is direct word of God. But by misinterpretation even some Muslims may have wrong ideas.
In 4:48 it is mentioned that is someone die with Shirk so that sin will not be forgiven. Sahabas were in Shirk before Islam but when they repent and became rightful believer so God forgive them. But if they had insist on Shirk and die in Shirk so they would not be forgiven. God do not forgive Shirk and that is true. But if someone repent before death so God should forgive.

We must qoute whole verse 153 and 154

153.The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority.

1. And We raised over them the mount for [refusal of] their covenant; and We said to them, “Enter the gate bowing humbly”, and We said to them, “Do not transgress on the Sabbath”, and We took from them a solemn covenant.

The forgiving in 153 is about not punishing them directly. Because the thunderbult had struck them before. And to discipline them the mount raised over them. But some insist on Shirk and rejecting. Verse 155 explain the outcome.

1. And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.

 

[Cthompson]

Quran is direct word of God.

"This Quran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before and fully explains the scriptures. (Sura 10:37)

Now, you will argue that the “scriptures” being referenced are the word of God before it was corrupted by Jews and Christians. To believe this, one would hold to the belief that a group of men organized themselves and collected all the scriptures (Qurans) in the known world and destroyed them and created a new scripture that we have nowadays (Bible) to prevent men from reading the true word of God (Quran) and benefiting themselves financially. This is a mighty and obviously impossible task, considering many of the scriptures were kept by monastic Jewish desert communities and groups that lived in isolated caves. One must also recall the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which fragments of scriptures were dated to around 200 B.C. Would this have been a 200+ year massive effort of destroying scriptures?

Finally, before the emergence of Islam, there is never any consideration of Islamic ideas. The early Greek and Roman worlds along with the Jewish historians cite numerous times that a man, Jesus, was crucified and his followers taught certain beliefs (true presence, Resurrection, and other Catholic beliefs) and identified as “Christians”.

It is not enough to simply argue the Jews and Christians corrupted the true word of God. An abundance of Palestinian, Greek, and Roman pagan third-party sources all confirm throughout the centuries the teachings that were being discussed by Jesus’ followers were not of Islamic beliefs. The apostles could never have corrupted the true word of God for material gain because they gained nothing by it. They were all horribly martyred (Roman, Greek, and Palestinian sources confirm this) and held no worldly power, material riches, or fame.

If an early group of followers of the Quran (1st century Muslims) were debating with early followers of the Bible (1st century Christians), how come there is no mention of these debates in the Roman or Greek historical documents? Surely a Roman emperor or historian would have documented these debates. He may have even pitted the two against each other in hopes of extinguishing them. Why do we never read of any early 1st century Islamic writers calling out that there is a global apostasy occurring during their time and these new “Christians” are corrupting the word of God?

 

[Athanasiy]

The discussion is quite interesting.
In the Christian-Islamic dialogue, unfortunately, the Muslims often do not want to listen the arguments.
But it is very important to co-exist peacefully in practical life.
I now read a multi-volume “British Documents On Ottoman Armenians” and I compare the described persecution of Armenians in the century before last, with the modern persecution of Christians in some countries of the Middle East. Тhe plot, and nature, and the reasons for the Christian persecution are the same until this day, and often the more in a Muslim state of theocracy and awakening, the more Christians are persecuted. This suggests that the the Christian-Islamic dialogue is important not only for intellectual honesty but also for the elementary human tolerancе.

 

[Cthompson]

But it is very important to co-exist peacefully in practical life.

often the more in a Muslim state of theocracy and awakening, the more Christians are persecuted

Christian-Islamic dialogue is important not only for intellectual honesty but also for the elementary human tolerancе.

Very true; however, its not the Christians who are having a difficult time co-existing alongside other faith groups. Islamic societies are the ones that need to start “co-existing”. If one understands Islamic beliefs and values, one will come to the conclusion that a peaceful society with multiple faiths is impossible to Islamic belief.

God bless.

 

[mhmtas63]

"This Quran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before and fully explains the scriptures. (Sura 10:37)

Now, you will argue that the “scriptures” being referenced are the word of God before it was corrupted by Jews and Christians. To believe this, one would hold to the belief that a group of men organized themselves and collected all the scriptures (Qurans) in the known world and destroyed them and created a new scripture that we have nowadays (Bible) to prevent men from reading the true word of God (Quran) and benefiting themselves financially. This is a mighty and obviously impossible task, considering many of the scriptures were kept by monastic Jewish desert communities and groups that lived in isolated caves. One must also recall the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which fragments of scriptures were dated to around 200 B.C. Would this have been a 200+ year massive effort of destroying scriptures?

Finally, before the emergence of Islam, there is never any consideration of Islamic ideas. The early Greek and Roman worlds along with the Jewish historians cite numerous times that a man, Jesus, was crucified and his followers taught certain beliefs (true presence, Resurrection, and other Catholic beliefs) and identified as “Christians”.

It is not enough to simply argue the Jews and Christians corrupted the true word of God. An abundance of Palestinian, Greek, and Roman pagan third-party sources all confirm throughout the centuries the teachings that were being discussed by Jesus’ followers were not of Islamic beliefs. The apostles could never have corrupted the true word of God for material gain because they gained nothing by it. They were all horribly martyred (Roman, Greek, and Palestinian sources confirm this) and held no worldly power, material riches, or fame.

If an early group of followers of the Quran (1st century Muslims) were debating with early followers of the Bible (1st century Christians), how come there is no mention of these debates in the Roman or Greek historical documents? Surely a Roman emperor or historian would have documented these debates. He may have even pitted the two against each other in hopes of extinguishing them. Why do we never read of any early 1st century Islamic writers calling out that there is a global apostasy occurring during their time and these new “Christians” are corrupting the word of God?

The “corruption” problem! I think some Muslims and most of People of Book misunderstand the point. It is clear that we have not whole original text of revelation in Bible and in Torah. Of course there may be most part of direct revelation but in some parts the revelation is explained by words of men. The writers narrate what they see or hear from prophet(Jesus, Moses …)

Quran(God) do not say the revelation is corrupted totaly but People of Book are reluctant to obey and perform what was ordered through revelation. And people of book invent new doctrines which was not revealed just like original sin, crucifixion, trinity… And Christians women do not cover themselves anymore.

 

[jas84173]

The Quran is Gnosticism at its best. Most stories in the Quran are in the heretical gospels as well, written much earlier. It isn’t a surprise. Muhammad lived in an area where heretics were exiled.

Muhammad was a creep. If I had to believe anyone who claimed to be a prophet after Christ would be Mani. Muhammad just stole heretical beliefs. The notion of not being crucified is in Coptic Gnostic writings.
See books like the Da Vinci Code are stupid because they make it sound like the Church suppressed books that were totally valid. It’s not true. Like a book it cites , the Gospel of Phillip wasn’t even written until the 4th century. And an ironic paradox is later writings didn’t refer to Christ as a mortal man but as a spirit.

 

[mhmtas63]

No.

As the story goes, an angel appeared to Mohammed and dictated the Quran. But Mohammed didn’t put pen to paper. He, in turn, dictated it to his 40 secretaries. Those 40 received different chapters. But sometimes, Mohammed corrected his chapters and dictated them to the wrong secretary. By the time of his death, the Quran was in shambles. When the 40 secretaries tried to sort it out, they couldn’t make heads or tails of it. So, a fellow named Uthman stepped in. He had 39 of the Qurans burned and put his version in their place.

There’s no way to confirm that:

Mohammed actually spoke to an angel. He’s the only purported witness.
the Quran in use today is actually the one Mohammed dictated.

There were thousands witness of revelation. Quran was revaled upon a time which continued for about 23 years. Just first revelation was in a cave. Many times Sahabas were witness of revelation.

Muhammad could not read or write. Verses were revealed in heart of Muhammad. And prophet Muhammad got writen verses. During His life Quran was not compiled in a book because the revelation was not finished until death of Muhammad. There would be many conflicts with that. After Prophet die Muslims compiled verses in a book by a commission during caliph Abu Bakr. Commisssion worked very carefully for instance for a vesre to take in book there must be at least two witness. Uthman made more copies through quraysh dialect. Otherwise non of verse were changed.

I can prove that Quran is not words of Muhammad. Just it take a bit long.

 

[Cthompson]

And people of book invent new doctrines which was not revealed just like original sin, crucifixion, trinity

You have still yet to address the historical evidence for Islamic belief taught before Muhammed. You argued that Catholic doctrines were invented, not revealed. If the prophets, Moses, and Jesus were Muslim and taught Islamic beliefs, where is the evidence for this?

 

[Athanasiy]

What is the “Сross of Christ” or " Christian faith in the Incarnation" I found out by beginning to read the above-mentioned multi-volume book “British Documents on Ottoman Armenians”.
It so happened that Christians Armenians (also Greeks, Assyrians) lived in the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
We in the Christian countries do not understand what price they paid, and what kind of cross was carried for their faith, for their theology the Christians-Armenians.
Armenians often used to live in a state of chronic terror , could not sleep soundly at night because of fears the nocturnal attacks of the robbers.
Burned monasteries, women and children have been subjected to a barbarous treatment, revolting to humanity. The houses, villages were destroyed, and all Armenians possessed pillaged.
Enemies some times plundered and killed at their pleasure, and any Christian who dared to deny them any thing, he was sure to loose his life and property.
Cattles, sheep’s, gold were plundered.
In some areas of the empire, the Armenians implored permission to sell, and received permits only on consenting to double or treble the tax.
Similar treatment towards the Christians we are witnessing today in some countries of the Middle East.
In case with Armenians , the same as today on Middle East, Christians had superior intelligence over the Mahometan races.
In their hands was the meaningfully capital and commerce, because they were industrial and frugal people, prosperous bankers, merchants, the agents of wealthy families.
The people who used to enrich Ottoman treasury, the wealth of the country were persecuted for their faith.
In addition to theology, in reality, the real reasons for the persecution of Christians were envy and the desire to enrich themselves with their wealth.

 

[Athanasiy]

Reading that book, I found out that the tragedy of the Armenian Christians was not a single tragic event, but many years of persecution, robberies, deportations, and murders.
Ugur Ungor, the Turkish historian, also mentions that one of the reasons for the persecution of Christians, (the reason which was hushed up) -the desire to enrich themselves with their property

Unfortunately, today the story is repeated, (exactly the same, according to the plot of atrocities) and the fate of Christians in the Middle East, often similar to that fate - the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire.
The question is whether the Muslims are ready for dialogue and co-existence.
This issue is very important in the background of political revival of Islam.