Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RJM Corbet said:
You just give me a headache man. Post evidence or back out of the thread
Click to expand...

I give you a headache?
You started the thread .. but you aren't prepared to look at the articles I've linked that contain the info you seek??
You want it all on a plate without doing the heavy lifting..
You are so sure that your Catholic creed is right, that you can't be bothered?

Tell God that on the day of judgement. :)
 
Oh .. and by the way .. you often complain about my lack of knowledge of the NT.
I know more about the NT than you have knowledge of Islam, THAT's for sure !
 
muhammad_isa said:
I give you a headache?
You started the thread .. but you aren't prepared to look at the articles I've linked that contain the info you seek??
You want it all on a plate without doing the heavy lifting..
You are so sure that your Catholic creed is right, that you can't be bothered?

Tell God that on the day of judgement. :)
Click to expand...
So on page ten you wiki a bunch of some stuff you surely haven't read that I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life trying to wade through the various opinions? Rajneesh? Get real @muhammad_isa present evidence not opinions, or back off
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
know more about the NT than you have of Islam
Click to expand...
What you get from Wikipedia?

I have taken the time to read the Quran and the point is I don't spend all my life energy attacking it, as you do Christianity. When did you read the New Testament?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
..the fact the Apocalypse of Peter was written around 500 years earlier, merely indicates it was partly used as source material during the writing of the Quran, imo.
Click to expand...

There you go again..
The Qur'an's "source material" was Muhammad, peace be with him, who [ at LEAST ] at the time of revelation, could neither read nor write.
He was raised with bedouin whose education was practical only.

Are you saying that some people were hypnotising him to cause the revelations?
It can't be so. The Qur'an is too perfect. It contains undoubted truth.

Divine law is the only thing that can save human beings from disaster.
Just look what a mess we are making of the world without it :(
 
You may say that if everybody was "a good Catholic", then it would amount to the same thing.
I have to disagree.

1. The church believes that it is continually guided by the Holy Spirit as it discerns new theological issues and is protected infallibly from falling into doctrinal error when a firm decision on an issue is reached.

That is nonsense. It is purely a belief that the church hierarchy are infallible. It is false. They can change what is moral and what is not according to modern trends. History shows us that that is exactly what is happening.
The Qur'an and hadith are static. The law/morality will not change up until doomsday.

2. It teaches that revelation has one common source, God, and two distinct modes of transmission: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition..
...
These are in turn interpreted by the Magisterium (from magister, Latin for "teacher"), the church's teaching authority, which is exercised by the pope and the College of Bishops in union with the pope, the Bishop of Rome. Catholic doctrine is authoritatively summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the Holy See

The only problem is, that the "sacred scripture" has been chosen in a canon, and is not directly the word of God, It is shown by historians that it contains discrepancies and is far from reliable. Popes and bishops are fallible humans.

Islamic law has its roots in the Qur'an which is static, unlike the catechism.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Islamic law has its roots in the Qur'an which is static, unlike the catechism.
Click to expand...

It was my impression that Islamic law was also based on the Hadith and the work of the jurists, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Yup. 2 billion people believe in a conspiracy theory that Jesus didn't die on the cross, because of what they read in their book, makes it true, against all evidence and common sense and reason?
Click to expand...
It's obvious that there are incommensurable beliefs here, which is always a challenge to interfaith discussion.

But let's not call the articles of faith of other religions "conspiracy theories", please? That in my eyes is an even bigger challenge to interfaith discussion.

There are so many important details where the various faiths disagree. Was it Isaac or Ismael who was going to be sacrificed? Was the Buddha in fact an avatar of Krishna? It is always easy to discover just how much disagreement there is on such a topic.

What I find much more fascinating are the things that we find we have in common. In the case of the present discussion, it seems to me that to the main contributors, the question whether Jesus died on the cross is important enought to have a long discussion about it.

So, given the different answers to the question itself, as per the different faiths - what is it about the crucifiction? That it points to deeper understanding (on each side of the discussion) of the nature and motivation of God? Or that it points us to a deeper understanding of the nature and motivation of us humans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
It's obvious that there are incommensurable beliefs here, which is always a challenge to interfaith discussion.

But let's not call the articles of faith of other religions "conspiracy theories", please? That in my eyes is an even bigger challenge to interfaith discussion.

There are so many important details where the various faiths disagree. Was it Isaac or Ismael who was going to be sacrificed? Was the Buddha in fact an avatar of Krishna? It is always easy to discover just how much disagreement there is on such a topic.

What I find much more fascinating are the things that we find we have in common. In the case of the present discussion, it seems to me that to the main contributors, the question whether Jesus died on the cross is important enought to have a long discussion about it.

So, given the different answers to the question itself, as per the different faiths - what is it about the crucifiction? That it points to deeper understanding (on each side of the discussion) of the nature and motivation of God? Or that it points us to a deeper understanding of the nature and motivation of us humans?
Click to expand...
You are quite right. I sincerely apologise for finally getting triggered.

The death on the cross is a necessary condition for the resurrection. Muslims believe in the virgin birth and the ascension alive of Jesus to heaven but not in the resurrection. Therefore the death on the cross has to go.

That is why I keep trying to bring the discussion back on topic

I apologise again
 
Isn't the resurrection of the dead a common belief held by Christians and Muslims alike?

What makes it important in each faith, in terms of doctrine?

What makes it important to individuals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
Isn't the resurrection of the dead a common belief held by Christians and Muslims alike?
Click to expand...
They both believe in a common resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. Some go to the good place, some to the bad. Individuals do not resurrect. Christ raised the dead on a couple of occasions, but the resurrection of the Christ opens the way to the divinity of Christ, which Muslims reject.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
clip_image001.gif

"Islamic views on Jesus' death"
... It discusses several "gnostic" texts.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I will check this out properly.


Meantime, although I have so far not presented Jospehus as an independent confirmation of the crucifixion, because of the doubt cast on him, I have now learned, at least according to this wiki article, that in spite of some interpolations it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate and that there appears to be a "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Testimonium:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...

Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate. James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Testimonium.

See also: Josephus on Jesus
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
I'm not sure what your point is..
I believe the evidence from "independent historians" .. they presumed him dead, just as the Qur'an tells us.
Click to expand...
Am on my phone but can repeat the gnostic links from this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death posted above later from PC if required.

There we have two gnostic accounts possibly of the 'substitution theory' and Ireneus remark about the theory that Jesus did not actually die on the cross.

Assuming historically that a crucifixion did happen it leaves these 3 alternatives:

1) A sinless man of virgin birth predicted his death and told it to all his trusting followers, but actually got it wrong, because Pilate took him down -- he was mistaken.

2) Ditto but he allowed someone else to suffer a horrible death in his place and watched laughing, according to these two gnostic accounts.

3) The gospels are wrong where they quote Jesus predicting his own death -- which requires us to reject the entire New Testament Jesus or else allows anyone to reconstruct the gospels using the parts they agree with to support whatever theory they want.
 
Last edited:
It's not just about certain words and events but about the very nature and personality of Jesus, imo.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top