what is islams belef on the crucifiction - Page 2

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-04-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mansio

Yaqinuddin

What you call the Bible are more precisely the Gospels.
The best proof that the Gospels are not corrupted is given by yourself.
If they were corrupted the writers would have harmonized the four descriptions of the resurrection.
Christianity, contrary to Islam, is a religion of the spirit not of the letter. The message (which is the meaning of the word gospel) delivered by Jesus through the four Gospels is the foundation of the faith, not the material details about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Obviously you have no knowledge of the history behind the four gospels. They were not written together simultaneously while Mark, Matthew, Luke and John sat on one round/square table and wrote those gospels!

mansio · 04-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Aidyl Nurhadi

Sorry but I did not say what you ascribe to me. I just said that the writers (no names and no numbers of them given in my post) and/or the transcribers who copied out the original Gospels, could have harmonized them by correcting the discrepancies between them.

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-04-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mansio

Yaqinuddin

What you call the Bible are more precisely the Gospels.
The best proof that the Gospels are not corrupted is given by yourself.
If they were corrupted the writers would have harmonized the four descriptions of the resurrection.
Christianity, contrary to Islam, is a religion of the spirit not of the letter. The message (which is the meaning of the word gospel) delivered by Jesus through the four Gospels is the foundation of the faith, not the material details about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

that's what you said......

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-04-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

that's what you said......

Now what I and many others would like to know is..who are these writers?....their names sir? their occupation? when and where did they live?

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-04-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mansio

Aidyl Nurhadi

Sorry but I did not say what you ascribe to me. I just said that the writers (no names and no numbers of them given in my post) and/or the transcribers who copied out the original Gospels, could have harmonized them by correcting the discrepancies between them.

Yoi've just proven the Muslim point that the Bible is no longer in its pristine purity. You have just attested that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not write Mark, Matthew, Luke and John! lol......and you expect people to believe anonymous books? sure...

mansio · 04-04-2006, 12:57 PM

Aidyl Nurhadi

You must start another thread if you want to talk about the "pristine purity" of the Bible.
If you are a religious person you know that God does not let his Word be lost. Whatever changes in the Bible, Christians and Jews know they have been done under God's supervision.

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-04-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mansio

Aidyl Nurhadi

You must start another thread if you want to talk about the "pristine purity" of the Bible.
If you are a religious person you know that God does not let his Word be lost. Whatever changes in the Bible, Christians and Jews know they have been done under God's supervision.

I am a religious person and the words of God Almighty are not altogether lost. They're preserved perfectly in the Holy Qur'an. What you have dear sir in your hand which you call the Bible contain gross errors which clearly indicate its corruption. But this is not the place for such a discussion. I am not suggesting that God Almighty is unable to preserve His own words. He is God, His power is beyond comprehension and limitless, however, we Muslims reason that the teachings of Moses, Jesus and all the other prophets before Muhammad are lost for good reasons. However, whatever they taught are completed and preserved in the Holy Qur'an, the last and final revelation.
Their teachings were not preserved not because God could not have done so, but rather because He had no cause to do so. This is because we say they were sent only for their people and for a certain period of time. This truth can be found in your own Bible sir. Jesus said:

"He(Jesus) replied,"I was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(Matthew 15:24)

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the charge: "Do not go to the Gentiles nor enter a city of a Samaritan, but go ye rather to the lost sheep of Israel."(Matthew 10:5-6)

Further more, 100% of his 12 disciples were JEWS....Never in the 3 years of his ministry did he ever preach to a NON-JEW .......His teachings were meant solely for the Jews....If you remember about the story of the Greek woman who asked Jesus to heal her daughter. What did he refer to her as? He called her a dog! That's the term he gives gentiles...who are the gentiles? everyone else who are not JEWS.....if you'd like to discuss about the pristine purity of the Bible with me, please do not hesitate to contact me at aidyl_man_of_faith@hotmail.com . Please do add me...I'd enjoy a good discussion about comparative religion

. Wassalamu'alaikum

Amica · 04-24-2006, 05:36 AM

Salaam/peace,

More about the crucifiction:
1) One has to ask when was Pilate documented to ask for a release of a prisoner? This is only documented in the four Gospels and no where else in the history. Pilate was a cruel man and many innocent people were crucified because they were threat to the Roman empire.
2) One story tells about Jesus entering Jerusalem and people rejoicing to see him. The next minute they are yelling to have him crucified. Does not make sense.
3) Romans were mostly believers in Mithras. If during the life of beloved Prophet Jesus pbuh he actually preached what today's Christian mainstream teaches, then why would they crucify their own 'god-man' for after all, there are such strong similarities between the Christian concept of Jesus and old Mithra cult. A Christian may say that if this was the case Jesus pbuh would be a threat because Ceasar claimed divinity. Well Jesus did not care about the Gentiles as much because he said it himself that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.
4) Human sacrifice is a pagan practice. Monotheist Jesus pbuh would not be a pagan preacher.
etc.
I don't have much time to write about this here (I will be back to write more) but I believe that the early Christians were split right from the beginning. After Jesus disappeared from the scene (God Almighty knows best!) Christians split and in order to survive they had to separate themselves from the Jewish mainstream. That is why for centuries only the Jews were blamed for the 'crucifixion.' Newly pulbished Gospel of Judas is dated to second century AD and kind of gives us clues about how many christian sects there already existed.
I believe that the resurrection was a fable because in order to supporte the crucifixion invention there needed to be an explanation for lack of body. What better way then to follow the suit of the old cults where their 'divine men' resurrected. Also, it was a perfect surivival story in overwhelmingly pagan world hostile to Jews who stubbornly maintained their claim to One God, despite their own differences and practices.

China Cat Sunflower · 04-24-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah,’ — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] [al-Nisa 4:157]

Interesting thread!

Chris

peace4all · 05-22-2006, 06:45 PM

No, the Quran does not specifically say another was crucified instead of Jesus.

The actual words in arabic are: wa ma gatalu-hu wa ma salabu-hu wa lakin shubbiha lahum.

Literal translation:
wa ma: and not
gatalu-hu: killed him
wa ma: and not
salabu-hu: crucified him
wa lakin: and but
shubbiha: resemble
lahum: him

So the verse is vague enough to mean whatever you want to intrepret it as. The translator must have interpreted it as meaning someone else was crucified. So he added the extra words to make grammatical sense ("and but resemble him" is not proper english). Unfortunately this happens quite often in the english translation, where you see 10 english words translating only 4 arabic words. Sometimes the translation is blatantly wrong, having the word "Allah" in the english translation but not in the arabic verse at all... So anyway... that is why I'm trying to learn Arabic

mansio · 05-23-2006, 06:56 PM

I would translate "wa mâ qatalûhu wa mâ Salabûhu,
walâkin shubbiha lahum"

as: "They did not kill him and not crucify him. It only seemed (or appeared) so to them."

Aidyl Nurhadi · 06-02-2006, 07:09 PM

Assalamu'alaikum,
The Qur'an's stand is quite clear in this matter. The Prophet Jesus a.s. was never killed nor crucified. Allah s.a.w. saved him from such an ordeal and took him up to Himself(the heavens) where he remains alive and awaits for the time appointed when he will descend unto earth to rid it of the pestilence of the Dajjal and his followers. Another reason for his return will be to rectify those who has deified him and attributed false attributes to him. The Bible says,"On that day many shall call me Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy IN THY NAME, cast out devils IN THY NAME and in THY NAME did many mighty miracles?. Then shall I(Jesus) profess unto them,'depart from me ye who work iniquity!'."

Saltmeister · 06-07-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Assalamu'alaikum,
The Qur'an's stand is quite clear in this matter. The Prophet Jesus a.s. was never killed nor crucified. Allah s.a.w. saved him from such an ordeal and took him up to Himself(the heavens) where he remains alive and awaits for the time appointed when he will descend unto earth to rid it of the pestilence of the Dajjal and his followers. Another reason for his return will be to rectify those who has deified him and attributed false attributes to him. The Bible says,"On that day many shall call me Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy IN THY NAME, cast out devils IN THY NAME and in THY NAME did many mighty miracles?. Then shall I(Jesus) profess unto them,'depart from me ye who work iniquity!'."

I did a Google search to determine that verse's location in the Bible.

If you're refering to Matthew 7:22, I think you'd be taking that verse out of context. Matthew 7:21, the verse before that, says, "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of heaven . . . " The previous verse actually implies that those who do call him Lord will enter God's Kingdom as Jesus is recorded as saying "not all who call me Lord . . ." However, not everyone who proclaims him Lord will enter God's Kingdom. That verse does not carry any criticism against those who deify Jesus. Criticism against those "deifying" Jesus doesn't exist in the context of Matthew 7:22, and nor does it fit in that context.

I think it says pretty much what you'd expect from us Christians -- that Jesus is our Lord.

Some Muslims dismiss the Bible altogether. Some Muslims actually quote verses from the Bible itself to suggest that Christians are wrong about their Bible. Their intention, usually, is to say that the Bible predicts the coming of Mohammed, that it doesn't support the deification of Christ, the concept of the Trinity or even the notion of Christ's crucifixion, etc.

I don't think the Christian faith is wrong about the Bible. My view is that the Bible has a simple purpose. The Bible tells a story. It exists for the sole purpose of reminding us of this story. The crucial point is whether or not we believe in this story. Christianity, therefore, is something abstract that's independent of the Bible itself. The story and this abstract concept of Christianity is what's meant to lead us to God (from our point of view).

The Bible is the Text for Christianity and probably wouldn't fit Islam. Whether the Bible has errors, in my view, is less important than whether Christianity is wrong. The issue of whether Christianity is wrong is what I think people should focus on, not whether the Bible contains contradictions. The Bible is the Text, Christianity is the religion it explains and represents. The Bible is not the religion itself.

This is perhaps a mistake many of us make and keep making. We want to believe in something perfect because it gives us a sense of certainty. The notion of a need for a perfect Text is an idea that is almost never challenged because people rarely think of the possibility of a religion that is independent of the Text.

Sure, a sense of certainty is important. The certainty comes from knowing the Way. However, the place where my view would probably differ from most of those here is that I don't think we need a perfect Text to know the Way. I think knowing the Way to God's Kingdom comes from discovering what's important and what we need to have a connection with God.

This is where we discover God. The Creation discovers the Creator. That's a miracle in itself. In other words, we are the miracle. We all have the potential to discover and connect with God. When we connect with God, that's when our potential is realised. We are miracles waiting to happen. The miracle is perhaps that some have already discovered and connected with God without the need for a perfect, error-free Text. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether the Bible or Quran have errors, but whether they tell us what's important to connect with God.