The scholars have spoken volumes about translation of this verse. None of them ever claimed that it translates into that Jesus Christ was crucified. "It appeared to them" means they were skeptical and not very sure about whom they crucified. So yes there was crucifixion but it was not Jesus Christ who was crucified. It was someone else. Also there is no single evidence of any corpse of Jesus Christ after this so-called crucifixion of him
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Jesus in the Quran the same in the Bible?
- Thread starter pro4life
- Start date
The scholars have spoken volumes about translation of this verse. None of them ever claimed that it translates into that Jesus Christ was crucified. "It appeared to them" means they were skeptical and not very sure about whom they crucified. So yes there was crucifixion but it was not Jesus Christ who was crucified. It was someone else. Also there is no single evidence of any corpse of Jesus Christ after this so-called crucifixion of him
raph
Member
The problem with scholars is, that they are human. And how is Mahmoud Ayoub not a scholar? Is scholar defined by thinking, what other scholars before him have thought?
And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
If Allah explicitaly stated, that:
He sent down the Torah, which implies that it is his Word
Jesus confirmed the Torah, which implies it was confirmable/true
Allah sent down the Injil, which implies that it is his Word
Muhammad confirmed the Injil, which implies that it was confirmable/true
Christians should judge by the injil that Allah sent down, which implies that Injil that the Christians have, is the injil that Allah sent down
Stories of past messengers have reached Muhammads people, because
Noone can change the word of Allah
There needs to come one hell of a scholar, before I believe that we should dismiss the Torah and Injil. And if scholars are infallible, we should all become Jews, because they say that Jesus is a false prophet and they came first
Just saying, to you your believe, to me mine Salam
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
Jesus was a false prophet. The last prophet of G-d was a few hundred years before Jesus.
Just because he had Jewish followers, that doesn't mean that what he said was true. There were also many Jews that opposed him.
The problem with scholars is, that they are human. And how is Mahmoud Ayoub not a scholar? Is scholar defined by thinking, what other scholars before him have thought?
And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
If Allah explicitaly stated, that:
He sent down the Torah, which implies that it is his Word
Jesus confirmed the Torah, which implies it was confirmable/true
Allah sent down the Injil, which implies that it is his Word
Muhammad confirmed the Injil, which implies that it was confirmable/true
Christians should judge by the injil that Allah sent down, which implies that Injil that the Christians have, is the injil that Allah sent down
Stories of past messengers have reached Muhammads people, because
Noone can change the word of Allah
There needs to come one hell of a scholar, before I believe that we should dismiss the Torah and Injil. And if scholars are infallible, we should all become Jews, because they say that Jesus is a false prophet and they came first
Salam
I am sure you do realize even through the Holy Qur'an confirmed that which proceeded it of the scriptures -pure scriptures, Allah said explicitly:
Sura 5 - Al-Maeda (MADINA) : Verse 72
Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allâh is the Messiah Īsā (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah Īsā(Jesus) said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allâh, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners (in worship) with Allâh, then Allâh has forbidden Paradise to him, and the Fire will be his abode[]. And for the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers) there are no helpers
So your analogy is lacking consistency. If it confirmed everything without reserve, then why Allah here says those who said Jesus is God are disbelievers?
and yes absolutely:
To you your religion, and to me mine
raph
Member
Because Allah confirms the scripture and not the interpretation of scripture. How do I know? Because the Bible doesn't say "Jesus is the Father". Only Christians say that.
The christians were divided since the beginning, wether or not Allah is Jesus. That is because, people always read only half of the scripture, the other half they ignore.
Luke 18:19
Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good, except God alone.
John 14:24
Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Jesus is the Word of God (Logos) in flesh. The Word of God is not Allah. How can Allah be the word of Allah? The word of Allah is eternal, devine and manifests Allahs attributes.
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God (because it manifests God's attributes)
That is the reason why Jesus said: "Who has seen me, has seen the Father (Allah)"
Jesus is God manifest, but not Allah. Allah didn't come down from heaven to incarnate in Jesus. But Jesus is Allahs attributes manifest.
That is the meaning of Son of God. Son of God is a metaphor, and Allah criticised only the people, who understand it literally.
Another way to look at this "contradiction" between Islam and Christianity is this:
When the sun (Allah) shines, it blasts photons(Holy Spirit) into your eyes, that make an image of the sun in your head (Jesus).
Islam emphasizes, that these photonsand the image are not the actual sun. Because the sun never came down to live in your eye. The sun is always at its place and doesn't come down as photons. God manifest is not God.
Christianity emphasizes that the photons, and the picture in your head, are the sun. Because the only way to recognize the sun, is through the photons, it blasts into your eyes and through the picture in your head. God manifest is God.
Both ways to look at it are true in their own way. Reality is paradox indeed. And saying that one is true and one is false, is false. Christian and Islam debate really comes down to this simple point:
Do you see the sun, when you look at it? This debate goes on for ever, because both answers are true.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
There were many Jews who opposed each other.
He was as much a prophet as any other prophet. At least he was not just a literary character.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
outhouse
Atheistically
But that remains unsubstantiated.
And that god created contradictions against a more historically accurate source.
Maybe there is not a drop of credibility?
Why is it not one credible scholar uses it for any Israelite history or any Jesus history???????????
The point is, we look at the historical value to see if things reported actually happened. When it comes to jesus, the book has no historicity. Now if you want to judge that by god or not is up to you, but god is not part of the equation when WE are lookinh at ONLY mans words, written by men.
outhouse
Atheistically
And yet almost ALL credible historians on the man look at the crucifixion as fact.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts
raph
Member
Because your definition of credible is non-muslim? Every muslim scholar thinks, the Quran is a credible historical source
I know that you are an atheist, and you know that I consider the Quran the infallible Word of God. You won't change my believe by quoting scholars. The question here is wether Quranic and Biblic Jesus are the same.
One thing I might add to this topic is, that early muslim scholars had different opinions on the crucifiction. Some of them had the same theory as I. So it is not true, that the Quran denies the crucifiction so clearly. The current opinion on the crucifiction, that Jesus was switched by another guy, comes from a quite questionable hadith.
outhouse
Atheistically
So your saying those who use no bias are not able to study history?
Every muslim scholar thinks, the Quran is a credible historical source
That is called fundamentalism.
It is also a unsubstantiated position to hold. Scholars of all religions create history from the NT and the OT.
Its factually an error to say only Jewish historians can properly create history from the OT. And that only Christians can create history from the NT.
Same goes for you. It is on you to provide credible sources that state the history in the Koran is the only correct version. That is factually an apologetic stance, and the academic world ignores this religious creation that is factually not credible history.
I don't want to change your faith, its not my goal. But this is the current opinion of where history stands on these topics.
They are not. This has already been determined.
Which has no historicity what so ever, but is also a sharp contradiction from the accepted historicity of the crucifixion I have already gave credible sources for.
outhouse
Atheistically
If this was true history, and not an apologetic version of history, these scholars you claim could change this below.
But they cannot why?
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Where are the other 2 million Jews that lived during that time buried?
We don't even know where Pilate was buried.
Finding bodies means little to determine historicity.
It means a lot when it is something about proving a "son of God" was crucified or not.
A lot of prophets have tombs already including Prophet Mohammed. Why is Jesus an exception ?
Shad
Veteran Member
Confirmation bias. You take the view that agrees with you as correct. There are alternatives. The mainstream Catholic view could be correct. No view could be correct.
Muffled
Jesus in me
In what way?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is because there is great deal of difference between what a text says and what some people think it says.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe this bit of misinformation is constantly presented by Muslims but repeating it doesn't make it true and it most certainly is not.
In the Qur'an, Christ isn't crucified, He did not return from the dead, He is not the Son of God and He is not God incarnate. In practice, Muslims also treat Jesus as inferior to Muhammad.
The Muslim Jesus, known as ‘Isa