what is islams belef on the crucifiction

Salaam/Peace

Try Ahmet Deedat's "Crucifixion or Crucifiction". It may shed some explanations of the Qur'anic verses. Also, the NT itself has certain descrepancies that are hard to ignore if one steps aside and looks at it objectively.

But then again. I am not asking you to believe what the Qur'an says. You have a choice to do research or not.

:) Peace and may God bless you.
 
The Docetes, a Christian heretical sect, had a view of the crucifixion very similar to that of Islam.


See Wikipedia: "In Christianity, Docetism is the belief, regarded by most theologians as heretical, that Jesus did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion."
 
Mansio,

Islam teaches that Jesus savs was a live, breathing, human being who was choses as the Messiah for the House of Israel. While the 'heretica' sect that you refer to may view crucifixion as false, it does not mean that it is equal to Islam.

Today's Christians are followers of the Catholic Churh whether they like it or not. You read about 'heretics' that the church persecuted from the documents that the church itself provided you with. It would be the same as reading from SS about Jewish Holocaust in WWII.
You do what your priests instruct you to do when it comes to alternative interpretations of the life of the historical Jesus. Everything is 'from devil' once it starts to contradict the Church view of the Christ. It is exception only when someone mentions Buddha and Mithras in comparision to the Jesus you believe in that you say 'Christ existed always' regardless of how weak the argument sounds since the 'god-man' of the ancients were mentioned long time ego before the Jesus the Nazarene pbuh.
 
The Docetes, a Christian heretical sect, had a view of the crucifixion very similar to that of Islam.


See Wikipedia: "In Christianity, Docetism is the belief, regarded by most theologians as heretical, that Jesus did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion."
Click to expand...

This is off topic paul was asking about the Islamic view not the view of a Christian sect.
 
Amica

I never said the view of Docetism on crucifixion was "equal" to that of Islam. I said it was similar.

I follow only what historians say about religions. Historians know that religions influence each other, especially when they are in the same area.

Millions of Christians are not followers of the Catholic Church, but followers of the Orthodox and Coptic churches (which are older than the Catholic Church) and of the many Protestant and Evangelical churches.

I leave up to you the use of the words "SS" and "Holocaust" in a discussion about the crucifixion. The readers and the moderators will judge.
 
Lets try to keep it on topic and not stray too far.
thipps (Islam forum moderator)
 
I have already read an Ahmad Deedat's article on the crucifiction a while ago, not sure if it's the same one.

It didn't make sense to me, and when i questioned it was told by Muslims his view was not the orthodox view.

What then is the Orthodox view?

The Ahmad Deedat's article i read spoke something of Christ not being dead on the cross and being stole away by some secret disciples from the tomb.

I've read a verse where the Quran says they killed Him not, but it was made to appear to them that they did.
I may not have recalled it completely correct, please correct me if i've erred.

But the New Testament, Christ Himself says no one takes my life from me but i lay it down of myself.
For the Christian belief He gave His life, it was not unwillingly took from Him, as if anyone had power to.

The Jews wanted Hm crucified, thought Him as a blasphemer, and deceiver of their people, their religion, so they would have thought they crucified Him, could this be what the Quran is saying?
 
Here is what the Quran says.

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]

Also it a fact that the Bible is corrupted.

How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)
​

Look at the Contradictions in the Resurrection story
this was done by Abdul Haleem

1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-

7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus (peace be upon him) had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.

5. To whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Issa (peace be upon him) appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?

7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus (peace be upon him) there, not in or near Jerusalem!

9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).



​
 
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.
 
I had read that verse before but don't recall reading "the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man"

Who then is this other man?

Does the Quran clearly explain this, as surely there is a need, for if what Christians clearly believed was in error, then it had to be clearly corrected.

Any alleged corruption or not of the Bible, is a whole other discussion, but what of this discussion, my questions have of yet avoided being answered.
 
ok, last time, keep it to the topic people. paul is right, we are not discussing at the moment regarding the Muslim belief of the Bible's corruption.
Lets just give the man what he wants... the Islamic belief of the crucifixion.
Paul, try not to counter the Islamic belief with biblical quotes... wont work here.
thipps (Islam board moderator)
 
paul said:
I had read that verse before but don't recall reading "the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man"

Who then is this other man?

Does the Quran clearly explain this, as surely there is a need, for if what Christians clearly believed was in error, then it had to be clearly corrected.

Any alleged corruption or not of the Bible, is a whole other discussion, but what of this discussion, my questions have of yet avoided being answered.
Click to expand...

lol the verse that the brother quoted does not speak about God replacing Isa a.s. with another man, he is putting his own words into that verse!...Nowhere in the Qur'an or in any one of authentic ahadith could you find any reference to such a thing as God replacing Isa with someone else. I say that the crucifixion was a fable, nothing more. There is NO SOLID evidence to say otherwise, what the four canonical gospels speaks about was not witnessed by any of the disciples! They wrote these events from hearsay....and this is proven by the fact that every one of the four of them relates somewhat different stories of the crucifixion!.....
 
mansio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
mansio said:
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.
Click to expand...

that's what you said......
 
Aidyl Nurhadi said:
that's what you said......
Click to expand...

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?
 
mansio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top