Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[firedragon]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

 

[Harel13]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

When have Jews ever walked around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Rival]

When have Jews ever walked around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?

It's in the Christian and Islamic scriptures.

 

[Harel13]

It's in the Christian and Islamic scriptures.

Yeah? In the NT too? I was not aware.

In which case the Muslim Jesus doesn't sound any different from the Christian Jesus.

 

[Rival]

Yeah? In the NT too? I was not aware.

In which case the Muslim Jesus doesn't sound any different from the Christian Jesus.

I thought you were aware of this 'his blood be upon us' nonsense? It's as good as the same thing imo.

 

[Harel13]

I thought you were aware of this 'his blood be upon us' nonsense? It's as good as the same thing imo.

Slipped my mind.

I'll rephrase my statement:
Why would Jews ever walk around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.
@firedragon thoughts on the matter?

 

[Rival]

Slipped my mind.

I'll rephrase my statement:
Why would Jews ever walk around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense and no-one would really do that. It's absurd and imo obviously fabricated to fit the narrative.

 

[firedragon]

When have Jews ever walked around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.

You mean to say Jews did not claim it ever? Hmm. Yep, maybe you are right. The verse says "they claimed" and addresses Jews and Christians together, so I hope you don't mind me changing the OP to correctly depict what I have to say.

Anyway, just to answer your question "when", you maybe right that Jews never officially claimed that they got Jesus killed. It was the Christians who claimed that. In the 4th century "Deicida" or the killers of the lord and was expressed heavily in the
pseudo-Cyprianic sermon in order to make that divide.

 

[Rival]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

I can conclude for myself that Jesus was a historical figure; an itinerant preacher who had a small band of followers who believed he was the messiah. I'm not sure whether he thought of himself as the messiah, but he certainly imo had heated dialogue with traditional Jews of his day. I believe the Romans crucified him for percieved sedition. As the Qur'an came centuries after Jesus I think it's of little to no help telling us about him.

 

[Harel13]

I can conclude for myself that Jesus was a historical figure; an itinerant preacher who had a small band of followers who believed he was the messiah. I'm not sure whether he thought of himself as the messiah, but he certainly imo had heated dialogue with traditional Jews of his day. I believe the Romans crucified him for percieved sedition.

This generalized account, matches up, I think, with all three versions - the NT, Quranic and Talmudic accounts. The exact details, however, are heavily disputed.

 

[firedragon]

I can conclude for myself that Jesus was a historical figure; an itinerant preacher who had a small band of followers who believed he was the messiah. I'm not sure whether he thought of himself as the messiah, but he certainly imo had heated dialogue with traditional Jews of his day. I believe the Romans crucified him for percieved sedition. As the Qur'an came centuries after Jesus I think it's of little to no help telling us about him.

The topic is not actually about the Quran being any help or not. It was a query if its historical in its depiction of the "non theological" Jesus.

 

[Rival]

The topic is not actually about the Quran being any help or not. It was a query if its historical in its depiction of the "non theological" Jesus.

Yes, and I said I don't think it is. It depicts him as not being crucified, which I don't think is true, for example.

 

[firedragon]

Slipped my mind.

I'll rephrase my statement:
Why would Jews ever walk around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.
@firedragon thoughts on the matter?

Hmm. Why is a good question that you, me or no one can answer but only speculate. "Why would they walk around saying we killed Jesus" cannot be answered. And about being proud of it, I think its not relevant unless you are aiming at making an impactful statement by adding that.

If you are claiming that its not a historical fact, then please make the claim. You see the topic is about historicity.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and I said I don't think it is. It depicts him as not being crucified, which I don't think is true, for example.

Why? Please explain.

 

[Rival]

Why? Please explain.

The main part of the Jesus narrative is that he was killed; he failed. This is recorded in the earliest accounts of Jesus; we have an early Roman graffito of someone rudely depicting a crucified Jesus with a horse head, so he's obviously not a fan. The current scholarly consensus is that Jesus, whoever he was, was crucified. People who believed the messiah would come in a blazing fire of chariots and blood dripping off a sparkling sword would not make up such a disturbing account of such a huge failure.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

The Quran was written 600, yes SIX HUNDRED, years after Jesus. Why would anyone use it as a historical document?

 

[firedragon]

Slipped my mind.

I'll rephrase my statement:
Why would Jews ever walk around saying "Yeah, we killed Jesus (and we're proud of it)"?
That goes against a heck of a lot of Jewish laws. It doesn't make sense.
@firedragon thoughts on the matter?

I simply didn't wish to deviate into some other discussion but I don't if you are aware of the Mishneh Torah account which is supposedly taken out later where Maimonides states that if the Messiah is killed he is no messiah. He goes on to say something about Jesus being sentenced to death by the court assuming he imagined himself to be the Messiah. Thus, it does not seem like he negated it the way you do.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

The main part of the Jesus narrative is that he was killed; he failed. This is recorded in the earliest accounts of Jesus; we have an early Roman graffito of someone rudely depicting a crucified Jesus with a horse head, so he's obviously not a fan. The current scholarly consensus is that Jesus, whoever he was, was crucified. People who believed the messiah would come in a blazing fire of chariots and blood dripping off a sparkling sword would not make up such a disturbing account of such a huge failure.

Okay. So you believe Jesus was crucified and is a historical fact. Thats fine.

But you see, the Qur'an does not really say that Jesus was never crucified by the Romans. It negates the claim of the ahlil kithab. Also, you seem to be not using historical sources but the Bible itself. Well, it may very well be historical because of course it is a scholarly consensus based on the probability that the Romans crucified him like they did to all the other people who claimed to be a messiah. Thats a probability. But you can never eve be 100% sure. No way.

Also, you should know that the Quranic narration about the crucifixion is called "muthadabih" or "Shabaha" which means its "dual". It appeared like that. They were ambiguous about it. They thought they killed him. They thought, they assumed.

So don't be so sure brother. If you need to ask something, just ask.

 

[Rival]

I simply didn't wish to deviate into some other discussion but I don't if you are aware of the Mishneh Torah account which is supposedly taken out later where Maimonides states that if the Messiah is killed he is no messiah. He goes on to say something about Jesus being sentenced to death by the court assuming he imagined himself to be the Messiah. Thus, it does not seem like he negated it the way you do.

Cheers.

I think you're reading this wrong. This isn't what we mean. It doesn't matter what Jesus thought about himself - no Jew has glorified in supposedly killing Jesus.

 

[Rival]

Okay. So you believe Jesus was crucified and is a historical fact. Thats fine.

But you see, the Qur'an does not really say that Jesus was never crucified by the Romans. It negates the claim of the ahlil kithab. Also, you seem to be not using historical sources but the Bible itself. Well, it may very well be historical because of course it is a scholarly consensus based on the probability that the Romans crucified him like they did to all the other people who claimed to be a messiah. Thats a probability. But you can never eve be 100% sure. No way.

Also, you should know that the Quranic narration about the crucifixion is called "muthadabih" or "Shabaha" which means its "dual". It appeared like that. They were ambiguous about it. They thought they killed him. They thought, they assumed.

So don't be so sure brother. If you need to ask something, just ask.

It seems pretty clear to me?

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Unless you want to say 'Oh, but it doesn't say the Romans never killed him', it surely could have told us that the Romans were the ones who actually killed him? But it doesn't; it says someone died in Jesus' place, leading us to believe Jesus never died on a cross at all. This is a well known heterodox Christian claim.