Is this the phrase you mean?About the thought…that another person was crucified in Jesus’s place…please show me the proof from either Holy Bible or Holy Quran… If not then please ask me question…what is the truth then? I will love to explain in detail with biblical references and Quanic references.
The Qur'an says nothing about Jesus lying, or standing by laughing.There have been a few quite heated discussions about it on this site.
I personally believe the idea is preposterous, considering the personality of Jesus -- that he lied to his followers and stood there laughing while another was crucified in his place..
Well, not just orthodox Christians, but also the majority of scholars and historians.Naturally, an orthodox Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, as core beliefs depend on it.
i.e. Jesus, a Jew, becomes a saviour / messiah due to dying and resurrecting
It starts with what the Quran says, and then sets out to find ways t0 justify it, in order to prove the Quran true, imoThat 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:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
Clearly then, there is a difference of opinion.However, IMO all scenarios presented are highly unlikely, based on the simple fact that it would require that Jesus, a sinless man of virgin birth (according to Quran), would deliberately deceive his followers, either before or after his crucifixion -- at least according to how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament?
Traditional Christian doctrine says that the resurrected Christ ascended.Oh well .. we both agree that Jesus ascended to heaven "alive and well".
How does this relate to whether or not Jesus died on the cross, as accepted by most scholars and historians, including atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman?Clearly then, there is a difference of opinion.
It isn't that difficult to see how a Jewish messiah can become accepted by a non-Jewish community as something that Jesus isn't.
Namely, a god-man.
You know what I think.How does this relate to whether or not Jesus died on the cross, as accepted by most scholars and historians, including atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman?
But whether or not Jesus died on the cross has nothing to do with whether people think Jesus is God? It's a separate issue?You know what I think.
Scholars can only decide on the evidence presented before them.
That evidence suggests that Jesus was put on the cross and died.
Many scholars don't accept any evidence that he was seen again after that..
..why would that be?
I know that you can't accept that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross.
Let's say, for sake of argument that I believe that he did.
..and that G-d decided that he would come alive again as a miracle.
Does that change anything for me?
No. I cannot accept that a man is G-d .. and that a man can bear people's sins etc.
I can accept that miracles happen.
I can accept that Jesus is a very special person .. but even Jesus prayed to G-d.
@RJM, We all know Wikipedia can not be authentic, there are anonymous writers, let that be as it is…the scriptures are considered as authentic so let focus on scripture as i said earlier and is not a bad idea…you agree?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Treatise_of_the_Great_Seth
The Treatise of the Great Seth is written from the first-person perspective of Jesus.
The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance."
… Some Gnostics believed Jesus was not a man but a docetistic spirit, and therefore could not die. From the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons:
For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death... It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns... And I was laughing at their ignorance.
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily Gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes Gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.
@Ismat What are your thoughts?
If the Wikipedia comments are not acceptable, the passages can be checked right here at IO, as we are proud to host the most complete library of New Testament apocrypha on the internet:
Do you dispute any of the passages from wiki that I posted above in the thread? If so, which ones?@RJM, We all know Wikipedia can not be authentic, there are anonymous writers, let that be as it is…the scriptures are considered as authentic so let focus on scripture as i said earlier and is not a bad idea…you agree? ... but if you want run away from the scriptures and follow wikis…its your choice.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs (John 19:33)Bible says “When the Centurions turn toward Jesus to break his legs…they found him already dead” (John 19)
Well, to be fair, language being what it is, the Quran is open to interpretation (as is any text) and so there are differing opinions as to what is being said.Quran says ...
Yes, He was dead.Bible says “When the Centurions turn toward Jesus to break his legs…they found him already dead” (John 19)...
Quite. But the centurion assured him that He was (15:44-45), so there is no question in Mark, who has already reported the death (15:37).... also Pontus Pilate did not believe that Jesus could die in such a short time on the cross (Mark 15:44).
You misinterpret us here, I fear.So I am with the Cristians side saying yes Jesus was indeed nailed on the Cross but he did not die on the cross.
You may think so, but I doubt it ...... there are more than 30 evidences from Bible to justify Jesus did not die on the cross
I don't get this.Rest assured there is no way the Romans would have let the Jews take away a living rebel.