I can accept that.
In all cases it is against the nature of Jesus to deceive.
There is no end to this.
let it be
Did Jesus Die On The Cross?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
- Status
In all cases it is against the nature of Jesus to deceive.
There is no end to this.
let it be
Of course, but we are just going round in circles.
Almighty God [ and Jesus ] have not deceived anybody.
It is mankind who have misunderstood a fine detail of what happened to Jesus, and it
became exaggerated and a new faith evolved around Jesus being divine.
It doesn't surprise me that you see it as deception.
Many Muslims see the Bible / NT as lies and deception.
I, as being more understanding of BOTH faiths, see it quite differently.
Taking the crucifixion, and making it huge stumbling block against believing in the Qur'an is
your problem, not mine. It really boils down to the same old Jesus is part of a trinity / God / divine business.
Whatever..
But there are no fine details, are there?
As you say, it all revolves around a very short and unclear passage from the Quran that has led to a lot of speculation about what really happened to Jesus. That's all there is to go on. So it's a choice of whether or not to accept it.
In all cases, whether to protect Pilate or whatever else, it implies Jesus whom the Quran accepts was an elevated being of virgin birth either did not know Pilate would rescue him, or allowed the deception to happen and to be covered up from everyone. It is all a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, imo.
It depends entirely in a fixed belief in the inerrancy of the Quran, which non-Muslims do not accept.
Is there more to add?
It doesn't. There are other texts that don't imply the divinity of Jesus through resurrection..
eg. Apocrypha
Why would Jesus and his disciples go round telling everybody that he didn't die, and hence make trouble for Jesus and those who helped him?
There is a reason for Jesus ascension. It was decreed by God in His wisdom.
What is the reason for the ascension, in YOUR opinion?
Unitarians believe that:-
- Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.
- The traditional doctrines of predestination, eternal damnation, and the vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction theories of the Atonement are invalid because they malign God's character and veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ.
Although the discussion is not about the resurrection, but the death on the cross, it would be helpful for you to list the particular apocrypha passages to which you are referring here, as many of the apocrypha documents are considered suspect by scholars?
Not really..
Let's say that he WAS crucified i.e. he was killed by putting him on a cross
It can be shown that Jesus appeared in public after this event.
..so God "made him again" at exactly the same age, along with healing wounds.
That is easy for God, It wouldn't make him "God's only son"
That is mistaken belief that has its roots in disbelief in the shema [ the foundation of true faith ]
God Almighty has always sent "his sons" to the world.
Disbelievers [ i.e. disbelievers in the Jewish God ] would greatly encourage such misbelief
eg. God has sent his only begotten son bla bla .. anything to confuse true faith [ as in Judaism ]
..and you haven't answered
"What is the reason for the ascension, in YOUR opinion?"
This has to do with the gospel accounts of the resurrection. There is a lot more to it than what you say, Christ was not recognised until he revealed that it was him, also walking through walls, deliberately manifesting the wounds to satisfy 'doubting Thomas' etc. This requires a working knowledge of the gospels for proper debate.
It also sidesteps the request for details of the apocrypha passages mentioned above?
Last edited:
That doesn't particularly interest me.
Naturally, you are more interested in the apocrypha than the Qur'an
It seems that the reason why "The Father" caused Jesus to ascend to heaven to be with him
doesn't interest you, either..
Agreed then, the only evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross is one line from the Quran?
they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them
Written 600 years after the event ...
they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them
Written 600 years after the event ...
Last edited:
Far from it.
You only seem to want to go on and on about one thing and ignore
surrounding issues.
No , I don't agree that the Qur'an is the only evidence that Jesus did not die and come back to life, and is not divine.
In Islam, Jesus was neither crucified nor raised from the dead, and according to the Qur’an,
he was rather saved by God and raised to Heaven.
I would have thought it pretty obvious that if Jesus had not ascended [ or moved to a different country ],
there would have been trouble.
Yes. According to Islam.
did not die on the cross
Please provide some evidence -- not proof -- just reasonable evidence, outside of that one line from the Quran
Last edited:
This requires a reasonable knowledge of the gospels, Christ's resurrection.
Have just picked up this late edit.
Answer: His work here was done, as the gospels explain
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 220
- Points
- 43
Done!
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 220
- Points
- 43
Good morning, RJ. Sorry for the delayed reply.
Concerning Pliny the Younger:
We are agreed that Pliny the Younger was governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, in what is now northwest Turkey. Before that, he had been a lawyer for several decades; then Praetor of Rome, and one of Emperor Trajan’s legal advisors.
In 112 CE, Pliny wrote to Trajan concerning a group of accused (and outlawed) Christians; two of whom (females) Pliny had tortured, in order to learn the nature of their beliefs.
All defendants were given the opportunity to renounce they Faith, and to offer sacrifice to Trajan. All who did so were released. Those refused were executed.
Unsure as to the acceptability of his actions, Pliny sought advice. Trajan reassured him that he was right to execute those who had refused to renounce their Faith; but that he was not to persecute the ‘cult’ as a whole.
Bart Ehrman writes:
The first time Jesus is mentioned in a pagan source is in the year 112 CE. The author, Pliny the Younger, was a governor of a Roman province. In a letter that he wrote to his emperor, Trajan, he indicates that there was a group of people called Christians who were meeting illegally; he wants to know how to handle the situation. These people, he tells the emperor, “worship Christ as a God.” That’s all he says about Jesus. It’s not much.’ (‘Jesus Interrupted – Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them); my emphasis).
What value should we give to one who has to torture his Christian prisoners in order to learn the basics of their religion?
Concerning Tacitus:
We are agreed, that Cornelius Tacitus is remembered as Rome’s greatest historian. This is the passage you refer to:
‘In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters...’ (‘Annals 15; Chapter 44’).
Why would this be taken as reliable evidence for the crucifixion? Tacitus is merely repeating the beliefs of Christians who lived in Rome at the time of the ‘Great Fire’; and he does so as a footnote to his principal theme; the history of the Roman Empire.
The exact date of authorship of the ‘Annals’ is unknown; but it has been suggested that the work was well progressed by 116 CE; some fifty years after the Great Fire, and around eighty years after the life of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).
As a senator, Tacitus would have had access to the Acta Senatus – the Senate Records – however, we know that the Roman’s did not retain meticulous records of the countless crucifixions they carried out; let alone records of executions carried out by Pilate some eighty years before the Annals were written. If Tacitus had even wanted to examine the records of ‘Christus’, where would he have looked? Would he even have bothered, when he could so easily have asked a colleague; or a passing Christian?
David Fitzgerald writes:
‘Again, considering how the Church latched onto a bit of writing like this and preserved it as evidence for Christ merely because of an incidental mention, think of how they would have gone absolutely gangbusters over anything that Pontius Pilate himself had written that specifically talked about Jesus! So we can rest assured that there aren’t any reports from Pilate that have been overlooked for the last 2000 years.
‘And would even a hypothetical Roman record ever really have said “Christus” (in other words, “the Messiah”!) was executed instead of Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth”, or at least the Latin equivalent?
‘“Christ” is the Greek translation of a Jewish religious title, not the surname of a condemned criminal. To suggest that “Christus” would have been the name found on a Roman police report is ridiculous.’ (‘Nailed – Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All’).
Concerning Suetonius:
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a Roman administrator, historian and secretary to the Emperor Hadrian; best known for his ‘Lives of the First Twelve Caesars.’
He is regarded as a ‘historical witness ‘ for Yeshua (who he at no time mentions by name) because of as single line – written at around 120 CE – in his biography of the Emperor Claudius:
‘As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (impulsore Chresto), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome.’
By using the expression ‘impulsore Chresto’, Sueonius is identifying Chrestus is an ‘impulsor’; one who ‘instigates’ a particular event; and not one who is the reason (or the inspiration) for that event.
Claudius ruled from 41 CE to 54 CE. We would need to demonstrate how Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) – who supposedly died around 30/33 CE – could possibly have been the instigator – the rabble rouser – Chrestus.
According to Act 28: 17-30, the Jews of Rome – having received no letters from Judea concerning Paul –wanted to know his views about Christianity. Paul is said to have witness to them from ‘morning to evening’, trying to ‘persuade’ them about Yeshua. Some were convinced, and others not.
Paul is said to have first visited Rome in the winter of 61 CE, in the reign of Nero, well after the events related by Suetonius.
We would need to explain why Roman Jews – knowing little of Christianity – would riot on its behalf, or that of its founder.
We seek credible confirmation of the crucifixion narratives; but we do so – in every case – without first questioning the veracity of the narratives themselves.
If the narratives are true – and the crucifixion a fact – then the search for external corroboration can be justified. On the other hand, if the narratives are false – and the crucifixion a lie – then such corroboration has nothing to offer.
May the Exalted bless you and keep you safe.
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 220
- Points
- 43
Wa alaykum s-salāmu wa Rahmatullāhi wa Barakātuhu.
Thank you for sharing your story, Brother. I apologise for the delayed reply.
For me, the hardest part of becoming a Muslim was the realisation that I could no longer accept Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) as my Lord and God.
I no longer live in the Rhondda, having become a culture missionary to the English in the late 70s! I now live near Leeds.
Forgive me, but I need to keep this short. Not feeling at all well, thanks to a Covid booster jab!
May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) bless you, and keep you safe.
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 220
- Points
- 43
Good morning, Topsey,
Many thanks for your kind words. I apologise for the delayed reply.
My grandchildren call me ‘Pop’, after my maternal grandad.
Martin Lings is something of a hero to my son. I am new to Frithjof Schuon, and look forward to absorbing his wisdom.
In šāʾ Allāh, I hope to make a contribution to this Forum, but for now I must keep it short. I had my Covid booster jab on Saturday, and it has just about wiped me out. Fortunately, I had already drafted my (longer winded) reply to RJM Corbet!
May the Exalted bless you, and keep you safe in these difficult times.
Thank you for that.
Nevertheless, it is something? It is independent historical evidence of a sort, while the only evidence against Jesus's death on the cross remains the one single line from the Quran mentioned above, written not 112 but 600 years after the event?
He tortured them to learn if their Christianity involved cannibalism or other depraved practices of which they were accused on account of their eucharistic ritual of the body and blood of Christ, I believe -- and he goes on to assure the Emperor he could find no such evidence, but only the communal sharing of 'normal' food and communal concern for one another.
Am typing on my phone, but will post the full text of correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan later from my PC
Do hope you're recovering from that booster jab
So that's it?
Your whole faith depends on whether a man died on a cross or not?
What a pity. God is great!
Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross
-wiki-
Apocalypse_of_Peter
and
First Apocalypse of James
Last edited:
You’re saved by hearing and reading the sayings of Jesus and trying to understand them.
You’re not saved by having faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection. This is a very different understanding of what salvation means and what Christ came to do.
By not including the Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament and including the other gospels instead, the leaders of Christianity definitely made a choice to go in that direction rather than the kind of more mystical path that the Gospel of Thomas represents.
You’re not saved by having faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection. This is a very different understanding of what salvation means and what Christ came to do.
By not including the Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament and including the other gospels instead, the leaders of Christianity definitely made a choice to go in that direction rather than the kind of more mystical path that the Gospel of Thomas represents.
- Status