Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ

[KathleenGee]

Not to invalidate you, but I got no response perhaps because I am a woman?

Perhaps it resulted in a new ‘Plantin’.

Byzantine Wolf, by chance I came across the burning of Smyrna in the early 1920’s…was also reading the New Testament, coming across its importance from ancient times.

Five thousand Christians were razed to the ground along with entire city, and what was very bad were the American warships that stood by and did nothing.

Greeks came on to Youtube to comment…then someone from the part of the world played with them saying that the Greeks did it…the anguish that responded…

I came across a webpage that unfolded the history of Islam going back to its beginning, all the way through the Middle Ages, down through the slave trade, the 1700’s, and it appeared that every 2 to 3 years somewhere in the world, Islam was causing fights and divisions.

CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, that some consider the umbrella of Al Qaeda, is now being exposed in our country…the war of lawsuits and intimidation…Islamicists are now ‘plant’ind’ in every campus across the country and students are afraid to say anything.

Our country of Catholics and Orthodox need to pray the rosary and stand up for our country and its sovereign right to exist…ours is the only one with a Constittutional Republic and we have those in government who are using our constitution against us…

How Islamicists crucify us!!! No plantin swords here!!

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Not to invalidate you, but I got no response perhaps because I am a woman?

I wouldn’t think so. One of the forum’s Muslim members, one of the best in fact, is Hadi, who is a woman. Jakasaki, who is a woman, has debated most of the Muslims on this forum at one time or another. From my experience here and elsewhere, gender isn’t an issue - especially since most of us are disguised behind a screenname and computer monitor.

Unfortunately, many on this forum simply ignore arguments or posts because, well, they cannot respond. Reviewing this thread earlier today, I realized that the only real Muslims who attempted to respond to the topic of this thread are rand al thor and planten; yet with the latter we had theological presuppositions that led to circular reasoning, and with the former we found distortion of scripture to suit that presupposition. Everything else has been a non-sequitor going off on another topic. So far, there seems to be no real reason for Islam to deny the crucifixion. As I stated earlier in this thread, why should Christians be expected to throw out four concise testimonies of the crucifixion (one written by an eyewitness, John, who was there at the foot of the cross) because of one vague passage in the Koran, a book which came 600 years later and dictated by a man who wasn’t there and didn’t know anyone who was?

In any case, planten has been called out on ignoring posts and even feigning ignorance of the existence of people he’s debated. So don’t feel offended if you get ignored - for many on this forum, it’s just part of their job.

Byzantine Wolf, by chance I came across the burning of Smyrna in the early 1920’s…was also reading the New Testament, coming across its importance from ancient times…Greeks came on to Youtube to comment…then someone from the part of the world played with them saying that the Greeks did it…the anguish that responded…

Blarg, YouTube comments. I tend to ignore them any way, be they right or wrong, simply because there’s so much fluff and trolling going on. My personal favorite was a guy who couldn’t defend a black professor who was getting Christian history wrong, so he just started calling me a racist. Ah, projection…

Bah. Thank you, AOL…so easy to use, no wonder there are so many dunderheads on the internet.

Our country of Catholics and Orthodox need to pray the rosary and stand up for our country and its sovereign right to exist…ours is the only one with a Constittutional Republic and we have those in government who are using our constitution against us…

Unfortunately the persecution of Christians began with the crucifixion and it didn’t end there. It will come in many forms, as the early Christians knew and as Christ warned. We can only pray to endure in His name, and pray that whoever it is doing the persecuting, that we may present a strong witness against His enemies and those who seek to dishonor him.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for responding and clarifying, Byzantine Wolf…I have been on and off Catholic Answers for awhile…thanks for the insight on Planten, although another has taken his name…

Yes, Christians always will be persecuted…

By the way, there is a new work going on by some scholars at Ave Maria University to return to classics the way the authors intended, be they Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and the like.

Modern commentators see past classics in the light of homosexuality, feminism, nihilism…

We have two generations after me who have received such a negative take on Christianity…BTW, I have read St. John Climacus, early desert writers…

When the Lord has led you to the desert, it is better to remain there…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

We have two generations after me who have received such a negative take on Christianity…BTW, I have read St. John Climacus, early desert writers…

Ah the classics. My patron saint, Anthony the Great (known by Catholics I think as Anthony the Abbot), was the one who perfected desert monasticism. He was responsible for its large growth in the late 3rd/early 4th century.

Incidentally, if you’re interested in them, you should read the “last” Desert Father, Saint John of Damascus. He’s quite interesting - he was a Christian Arab who worked in a Muslim court, when the Muslims took over Damascus. He actually wrote a brief response to Islam, one of the earliest by a Christian writer. It’s available on a few websites online, including Orthodox Christian Information Center.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Byzantine Wolf, yes I did read S. John Damascus on Islam…!

I pray for their conversion to Christ!

 

[planten]

The topic is " Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ ". It is better to define the word “Crucified”. Does it mean putting some one up on a tree or a cross? Or does it mean “Dying on the cross?”

The Quran admits the putting up of Jesus on the cross. But it denies the death of Jesus on the cross or death in any other way at that time. Church believes that Jesus died on the cross. Islam does not believe that Jesus died on the cross.

You are looking for reasons. Well both sides keep trying honestly.

 

[sedonaman]

The topic is " Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ "…

Yes, and the answer comes down to one thing: belief in the crucifixion eliminates the need for Mohammed. If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, Mohammed is faced with some rather difficult questions:

Why does Allah send Jesus to start a false religion that misleads billions of people?

Why does Allah send prophets to preach a different message from Islam, and get people to believe a lie?

Why did Allah deceived people into believing that Jesus had died on the cross? Even if we allow that Allah’s only goal was to deceive the people who wanted to kill Jesus, it is clear that his disciples also fell for Allah’s deception. So who is responsible for the Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross? If Islam is correct, Allah started this idea when he decided to trick Jesus’ enemies into thinking that they had killed Jesus. This leads to even more problems. If the deception of the disciples was UNintentional, then we must conclude that Allah didn’t realize that he was about to start the largest false religion in the world. If it was INtentional, then why is Allah is in the business of starting false religions?

Muhammad’s position also means that Jesus was the greatest failure in the history of all the prophets. He spent 33 years preaching [remember, He began preaching Islamic theology at birth], yet shortly after his death [or being snatched up to heaven by Allah at the last minute to save him from dying on the cross], the children of Israel were divided into two broad camps. Those who believed his message became Christians, all of whom were guilty of the worst sin imaginable [shirk], while those who rejected his message were guilty of rejecting one of Allah’s greatest messengers. Thus, whether people believed in Jesus or rejected him, everyone would ultimately be condemned and cast into the hellfire.

Why then do Muslims consider Jesus to be one of the greatest prophets ever? If we follow the teachings of Islam through to their logical conclusion, we see that Allah either intentionally or unintentionally started Christianity. But the Qur’an doesn’t stop there. Instead of correcting the mess he made, Allah took Christianity to the next level. The Qur’an states that Allah helped spread Christianity. Once Allah had caused belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, he then worked diligently to aid the Christians in spreading their false message.

Allah even led Jesus’ followers astray by tricking so many people into believing that Jesus died. This could have been avoided if Allah hadn’t been so intent on deceiving people. But this leads to more questions:

Why would Allah want people to believe that Jesus was dead when he really wasn’t? Muslims can’t argue that Allah did it to protect Jesus from the Jews or Romans, since Allah was taking Jesus away safely anyway. So, why would Allah want to give Jesus’ enemies the satisfaction of seeing Jesus killed? Why not raise Jesus up without deceiving everyone about it? There seems to be no reason at all for Allah to deceive these people, especially since such a deception would soon lead to the formation of Christianity … and the resulting deception of billions of people.

The typical Muslim answer is Allah confuses those whom he wills to be confused [or something like that].

The biggest question, however, is:
Why aren’t these considerations enough to reject forthwith the claims of Islam and Mohammed?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The topic is " Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ ". It is better to define the word “Crucified”. Does it mean putting some one up on a tree or a cross? Or does it mean “Dying on the cross?”

Did you just pull a Bill Clinton?

I think everyone here knows what we mean by “crucifixion.” This hasn’t been an issue the entire thread.

The Quran admits the putting up of Jesus on the cross. But it denies the death of Jesus on the cross or death in any other way at that time. Church believes that Jesus died on the cross. Islam does not believe that Jesus died on the cross.

You are looking for reasons. Well both sides keep trying honestly.

Actually, we Christians have the answer and the reasons, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and those who were contemporaries of Christ. We have four accounts, as I stated earlier. They are all consistent, and agree on such things as:

• Christ was crucified on Golgotha, also known as Calvary [Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17]
• A sign was placed over Christ’s head [Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19]
• Jesus was crucified between two thieves [Matt 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32; John 19:18]
• The garment Christ wore was divided and gambled over [Matt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24]
• Most of all…as I said in an earlier post…Jesus died on the cross [Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30]

What can Islam offer? One vague passage from the Koran:

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. [S. 4:157; Yusuf Ali]

I say “vague” because not even Islamic scholars can agree on what this fully means: some believe that God made Judas look like Jesus and he was crucified instead (I believe an Iranian movie about Jesus came out recently that told this version); some scholars (such as Ahmed Deedat) believe in the “swoon theory”; some believe the whole thing was, as the passage said, made to simply look like Jesus was dying (which is actually an early Gnostic heresy known as Docetism). I’ve heard even wilder theories, such as one that said (and I swear I’m not making this up!) that it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified instead of Jesus.

By contrast, every Christian scholar and every Church Father knows how the crucifixion happened, and they know for a fact how Christ died on the cross - you will not find division among them. It is therefore ironic that the Koran claims there is “conjecture,” when in fact the only “conjecture” is on the side of Islam. The only thing Muslims can do is bring up further conjecture while ignoring the evidence in front of them, or commit what you did earlier and play pick-and-choose with scripture to try and prove their point. The former is circular reasoning, the latter is intellectual dishonesty. If you wish both sides to “keep trying honestly,” then by all means begin to act honestly.

 

[a195]

Why does Allah send Jesus to start a false religion that misleads billions of people?

It wasn’t Jesus, but Paul who started a false religion.

Peter said:

" Can anyone be qualified by a vision to become a teacher? And if you say it is possible, then why did the Teacher remain for a whole year conversing with those who were awake? How can we believe even your statement that he appeared to you? How could he have appeared to you, when your opinions are opposed to his teaching? No, if you were visited and taught by him for a single hour and thus became an apostle, proclaim his utterances, interpret his teachings, then love his apostles and do not strive against me who was his companion. For you have opposed me, the firm Rock, foundation of the Church. If you were not an enemy, you would not slander me and disparage what is preached by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned. Rather, if you really want to work together for the truth, first learn from us what we learned from him. Then, having become a disciple of the truth, become our fellow-worker "

" Our Lord and Prophet who hath sent us, declared to us that the Wicked One, having disputed with Him for forty days promised that he would send apostles from amongst his subjects, to deceive. Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher who does not first accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem "

He also wrote a letter to James:

" Give my preachings to our brethren; for if not, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions. I am already seeing the beginning of this very evil. For some among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. These men claimed to know my mind, undertake to explain my words more intelligently than I who spoke them. If while I am still alive, they dare thus to misrepresent me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so! " (Clementine Homilies)

And sure enough, soon after Jesus’ ascension, the Wicked One had chosen Paul, “I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant”

And thus, to paraphrase Paul’s own words, “all those who have died believing in me are lost”.

 

[Bushmaster78FS]

Did you just pull a Bill Clinton?

I think everyone here knows what we mean by “crucifixion.” This hasn’t been an issue the entire thread…

Watch out though, Islam had invented crucifixion before it was ever existed, it was used by the Pharaoh…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It wasn’t Jesus, but Paul who started a false religion.

Is that why all the apostles worked together with him? No one opposed him, and there’s no sign that the original apostles of Christ tried to stop him.

In fact, Paul affronted those who tried to make him anything great.

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. [1 Cor 1:11-13]

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. [1 Cor 3:5-7]

He also said that they should accurse anyone who gives them a contradictory gospel…even him.

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:6-8; emphasis mine]

As I stated earlier in this thread, the Koran says the early followers of Jesus were full of truth…apparently they were also spineless and incompetant, because they allowed a man named Paul to barge in and ruin God’s plan so much so that He had to send another prophet. And apparently God is completely incapable of preventing the gates of hell from overrunning His Church, something He promised would never happen (Matt 16:18).

Peter said:

" Can anyone be …"

You’re quoting the Kerygmata Petrou, a document which was believed to have come about in the late 2nd to early 3rd century, long after Peter had been martyred (source). There is no way he could have written, it is therefore irroneous that you use it now as a source.

He also wrote a letter to James…

You are quoting the Epistle of Peter to James, part of a larger work that was also sourced to a later time period.

In their present form the several works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second century. (source)

Again, Peter could not have written it.

And thus, to paraphrase Paul’s own words, “all those who have died believing in me are lost”.

A major paraphrase - I don’t recall Paul ever saying anything similar. Please provide the direct quotation.

Of course, this doesn’t touch on the fact that none of this has anything to do with the crucifixion.

 

[Javl]

a195:
And thus, to paraphrase Paul’s own words, “all those who have died believing in me are lost”.

Can you please tell me where Paul says this, please? I have searched all Paul’s letters and references and cannot find this statement. Thank you

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[sedonaman]

…It is therefore ironic that the Koran claims there is “conjecture,” when in fact the only “conjecture” is on the side of Islam. The only thing Muslims can do is bring up further conjecture while ignoring the evidence in front of them, or commit what you did earlier and play pick-and-choose with scripture to try and prove their point. The former is circular reasoning, the latter is intellectual dishonesty. If you wish both sides to “keep trying honestly,” then by all means begin to act honestly.

For all their claims that the Bible had been “corrupted”, Muslims have no problem corrupting it themselves by introducing those crazy conjectures. When faced with the lack of any historical evidence for their claims, they must further conjure up other crazy answer:

Claim: “The Bible is corrupted because Jesus wasn’t really crucified.”

Christian response: “Oh, no? Here is historical documentation from an independent source [Josephus] that says he was.”

Muslim response: “Oh, well, it only appeared to his enemies that he was crucified, or ‘crucifixion’ means to die on a cross, and he might have been placed on the cross, but didn’t die on it; God whisked him up to heaven before he died.”

Or, as you pointed out: “It was someone else.”

Another ironic thing is that they rely so heavily on a “corrupted” document to discover the slightest proof for their pre-conceived ideas. And we have not heard an answer to our question as to why Mohammed so desperately needs an allegedly corrupted Bible at all; why can’t his religion [if you can call it that, and I have my doubts] stand on its own?

 

[KathleenGee]

All the Christians have given great follow-ups…there is also reference to the Messiah dying on a tree in a prophecy of Isaiah…

Yes, you Christians have given numerous and intelligent, learned, reasonable answers, as well as referring to the Quran’s vague reference to Christ’s manner of being on a tree…

Jesus performed healings and work that all focused on new life.

Muhammed in the end brought death and destruction, all sorts of justification to use women for self-pleasure, reducing them to fields…

Stop playing games. God is all perfect and does not contradict Himself.

I just read a witness by a Jewess. She spoke of how she looked at goyim, even the image of the cross…and how one day, in Israel, she came across the New Testament laying on the beach…she experienced Jesus the Messiah in the Gospels…and in time she converted with much opposition by her family. She is now a devout Catholic.

 

[sedonaman]

It wasn’t Jesus, but Paul who started a false religion.
…

And that’s why we are called “Paulinians” instead of “Christians”.

So answer the question of the thread. Why does Islam deny the crucifixion of Christ?

One of your fellow Muslim posters, planten", wrote:

…
There is a hell of a difference in the teachings of Jesus and the words of Paul.

I asked the following:

What are the teachings of Jesus? You have said in the past that the Bible had been corrupted by the introduction of ideas such as the Trinity and those of that dastardly Paul of Tarsus. … You have also said in prior posts that Jesus taught “many” good things. If that is true, and the Qur’an is to correct the “corruptions” of prior revelations, where in the Qur’an are the “good teachings” of Jesus such as the Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount? If those are “corruptions” also, what do Muslims consider the “good teachings” of Jesus?

It’s been over two months, and I have not yet receive an answer from him. Perhaps you would like to proffer one.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And we have not heard an answer to our question as to why Mohammed so desperately needs an allegedly corrupted Bible at all; why can’t his religion [if you can call it that, and I have my doubts] stand on its own?

That’s because he claimed to be in line with the prophets of Judaism. The problem is that what came before Mohammad contradicts what he teaches the Muslims, as we saw with planten’s post regarding the crucifixion. So they have to allege corruption, never realizing the intellectual dishonesty in doing so.

As I demonstrated, the only way to try to use the New Testament to prove the Islamic case for the crucifixion is to play pick-and-choose with isolated passages.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Muhammed in the end brought death and destruction, all sorts of justification to use women for self-pleasure, reducing them to fields…

I still like the story of voluptuous virgins in heaven.

Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart’s) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age… [S. 78:31-33; Yusuf Ali]

The Islamic concept of Paradise described by Mohammad and the Kingdom of Heaven told of by Jesus are two wildly different things. I once debated a Muslim on this forum who tried to say that Mohammad was trying to appeal to our earthly senses by using examples…of course this is even worse, as if we are expected to believe you have to sell the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ never told Peter, 'Blessed are you, Simon…and for being blessed, you get a girl with DD’s in heaven." :hypno: :whacky: :hypno:

And then we’re expected to believe what this man had to say about an event 600 years before his time.

 

[Javl]

And that’s why we are called “Paulinians” instead of “Christians”.

So answer the question of the thread. Why does Islam deny the crucifixion of Christ?

One of your fellow Muslim posters, planten", wrote:

I asked the following:
It’s been over two months, and I have not yet receive an answer from him. Perhaps you would like to proffer one.

You’re not the only one waiting for answers. I’ve posed a few questions and am completely ignored. How can they answer you when they know that they are totally wrong? Again I say, Islam is more a political philosophy disguised as a religion. Iran and Saudi Arabia prove this, along with all those mulim terrorists.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[a195]

biblical source:

According to paleographical analysis, the earliest NT manuscripts are the papyri from the 2nd century. While most modern scholars agree that Paul himself did write most of the letters attributed to him, the same authenticity cannot be said about the authors of the canonical Gospels.

Paul’s writing lack the narrative of Jesus that the Gospels have. No mention of a specific Gospel, only “my Gospel” (Rom 16:25). Thus, Paul’s epistles came up BEFORE any of the Gospels were written. If Paul had witnessed the crucifixion, he certainly would have mention this important event. The various Gospels were penned down afterward, conforming to the doctrines in Paul’s letters.

extra-biblical source:

Tacitus wrote the Annals c.116 CE. He was born decades after the alleged crucifixion. Chapter XV which contains the passage “Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” survives in only a single manuscript, dated to the 11th century. Some scholars believe the passage was a later interpolation by Christian scribes, just like the ‘testimonium flavianum’ of Josephus.

The other ‘testimonies’ are more unreliable and not worth mentioning, eg. the 2nd century playwright Lucian, and the ‘hanged Yeshu’ of Sanhedrin 43a etc. etc.

Now we can see; there was no first-hand witness that Jesus was crucified → Jesus’ crucifixion is a conjecture.

 

[jakasaki]

biblical source:

According to paleographical analysis, the earliest NT manuscripts are the papyri from the 2nd century. While most modern scholars agree that Paul himself did write most of the letters attributed to him, the same authenticity cannot be said about the authors of the canonical Gospels.

Paul’s writing lack the narrative of Jesus that the Gospels have. No mention of a specific Gospel, only “my Gospel” (Rom 16:25). Thus, Paul’s epistles came up BEFORE any of the Gospels were written. If Paul had witnessed the crucifixion, he certainly would have mention this important event. The various Gospels were penned down afterward, conforming to the doctrines in Paul’s letters.

extra-biblical source:

Tacitus wrote the Annals c.116 CE. He was born decades after the alleged crucifixion. Chapter XV which contains the passage “Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” survives in only a single manuscript, dated to the 11th century. Some scholars believe the passage was a later interpolation by Christian scribes, just like the ‘testimonium flavianum’ of Josephus.

The other ‘testimonies’ are more unreliable and not worth mentioning, eg. the 2nd century playwright Lucian, and the ‘hanged Yeshu’ of Sanhedrin 43a etc. etc.

Now we can see; there was no first-hand witness that Jesus was crucified → Jesus’ crucifixion is a conjecture.

Please cite your source(2) for this entire post.