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

[oldbadger]

Your irrelevant points and questioning is something of an admission of defeat. Your original point which I am sticking with was that Paul knew nothing of the life of Christ, whereas he clearly did as he as his companion was the writer of the third gospel!

...proving beyond any doubt that Paul didn't give a hoot for the life and times of Jesus...... if he knew so much, as you claim, and never described one single account about Jesus's travels, his demonstrations, his debates, then Paul obviously didn't think those subjects had any importance.

I did not raise the subject of the nativity. I raised the subject of Christ's origination. I am sorry you cannot discern the distinction.

Is the Nativity story true? Or not?
Was Jesus born, or not?

None of any credibility.

Which ones have you researched?
Any?

A lot of people think that your religion doesn't have much credibility, so chucking that line on the table seems pathetic.

So to come back to the thread, do you think there is any historical credibility at all for any part of the Islamic account of Jesus? Yes? No?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Therefore, I conclude the whole thread.
This Issa of the Quran can never be Jesus of the Bible.
The Issa of the Quran stood and watched whilst some one else, or a mirrage was killed on the cross.
The Historical Jesus was the one kcrucified and killed on the cross.

Period, this is hte difference, and can never be changed or expaned away.

I leave you with a few reanslations by Muslims on this verse so you can see how they twist and turn the Arabic in an attempt to get out of this predicament of Allah who deceived the followers of Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (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. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Please check these facts.

 

[firedragon]

So which part of :
The Qur’an states very clearly “…for of a surety they killed him (Jesus) not,” (see Qur’an 4:157-159)
................ didn't you understand as relevant?

I was given chapter line and verse for that......... brother.....

And which part of Pilate pardoning/releasing a man called Jesus son of the Father, so loved by the people cannot connect with the above in some way?

The Islamic Jesus is the same Jesus as the Gospel Jesus, and Jesus is an historic figure. That's not too hard to show. And since I'm neither Muslim nor Christian I've hardly got an agenda driving me to see that.

Pilate and Jesus connection in Bible is not relevant. Which part? The whole part.

Your agenda matter is a straw man.

 

[oldbadger]

Now again, the Quran say:

1. there are people who boast that they killed the Issa messiach.
2. But they did not kill him, or crucified him.
3. But it was made to appear!!!!!!!

So, What was made to appear?
........................

Who could have identified who was on the cross?
The people were kept at distance.
The convict was disfigured with blood over his features.
Ge was taken down after a short time, after Joseph spoke with Pilate. He was got away.

When Magdalene visited the tomb the next morning after a 12 hour absence it was empty.

Who really knows?

 

[firedragon]

My dear friend.
I am astonished that you would go to such lengths to deny what the verse says.
Why do you fight it?
Do you have a problem with the words of Allah?
Now again, the Quran say:

1. there are people who boast that they killed the Issa messiach.
2. But they did not kill him, or crucified him.
3. But it was made to appear!!!!!!!

So, What was made to appear?
Jesus on the cross or not?

Nope. Its Muthasabih. Sabaha. Dual, ambiguous. This word "Appear" doesn't mean like on TV or an image or vision, its what you think happened.

What you said earlier was "they saw someone else dying on the cross and that the Quran said it" which is not true. So you should first accept its not true and you have blundered blindly because you are now quoting the same verse and asking about an appearance, not another man dying on the cross.

 

[oldbadger]

Therefore, I conclude the whole thread.
This Issa of the Quran can never be Jesus of the Bible.
The Issa of the Quran stood and watched whilst some one else, or a mirrage was killed on the cross.
The Historical Jesus was the one kcrucified and killed on the cross..

I don't think so.
Jesus son of the father, so loved by everyone, was pardoned and released by Pilate. It says so in the gospels.

The person crucified was whipped bloody and his whole head and features covered in blood. Magdalene, Salome and other women had to watch from 'afar'.
A spear thrust could have emptied his lung of blood and fluids, as described..... allowing that .lung to function.

The thread is concluded when the last post is written........

 

[oldbadger]

Pilate and Jesus connection in Bible is not relevant. Which part? The whole part.

Your agenda matter is a straw man.

But you obviously don't get to speak for all Muslims.
That became clear when I asked an old friend for help.

Hey...... it was fun writing to you.
I'll see you around.

 

[firedragon]

But you obviously don't get to speak for all Muslims.
That became clear when I asked an old friend for help.

Hey...... it was fun writing to you.
I'll see you around.

Of course, no one speaks for all the people of anything. And that too is irrelevant. Cheers.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I don't think so.
Jesus son of the father, so loved by everyone, was pardoned and released by Pilate. It says so in the gospels.

The person crucified was whipped bloody and his whole head and features covered in blood. Magdalene, Salome and other women had to watch from 'afar'.
A spear thrust could have emptied his lung of blood and fluids, as described..... allowing that .lung to function.

The thread is concluded when the last post is written........

Wrong again. John and Mary, Jesus' mother was right in front of Jesus. They communicated with each other.
Anyhow, what does this have to do with the fact that Allah say he made something to appear as if it was killed on the cross.
Dont go and sidestep the facts pal.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What you said earlier was "they saw someone else dying on the cross and that the Quran said it" which is not true. So you should first accept its not true and you have blundered blindly because you are now quoting the same verse and asking about an appearance, not another man dying on the cross.

Pal, do you realy believe your argument?
If Allah say they boast that they murdered Jesus, but they did not, it was only made to appear....
And the above is your argument!!!!
Please explain what Allah made to appear, and what the hell does this have to do with Jesus.
I will wait.

 

[firedragon]

Pal, do you realy believe your argument?
If Allah say they boast that they murdered Jesus, but they did not, it was only made to appear....
And the above is your argument!!!!
Please explain what Allah made to appear, and what the hell does this have to do with Jesus.
I will wait.

Again you misquoted quite strangely. Who said “boast”?

Also, I explained “appear”. Read again.

Then you ask what does this have to do with Jesus. Mate, I quoted this verse in the OP. It’s all about Jesus.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Again you misquoted quite strangely. Who said “boast”?

Well, Take your pick amongst the Translators of the Quran in English!


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali: That 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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (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. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

You see, Your explanation is not substantiated at all.
Use this site to see all the differnt translations Muslims uses which is actually proof of how they also, just as you, attempt to explain this destructive contradiction away.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[firedragon]

Well, Take your pick amongst the Translators of the Quran in English!


Sahih International: 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.

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali: That 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:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (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. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:

Arberry: and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

You see, Your explanation is not substantiated at all.
Use this site to see all the differnt translations Muslims uses which is actually proof of how they also, just as you, attempt to explain this destructive contradiction away.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

So show me which translation said “boast” and let’s see if you’re correct.

 

[eik]

...proving beyond any doubt that Paul didn't give a hoot for the life and times of Jesus...... if he knew so much, as you claim, and never described one single account about Jesus's travels, his demonstrations, his debates, then Paul obviously didn't think those subjects had any importance.

Why should Paul take credit for another's research? Your criticisms of Paul seem to be born of contempt, nor substance.

Is the Nativity story true? Or not?
Was Jesus born, or not?

He was born but he came from another place.

Which ones have you researched?
Any?

A lot of people think that your religion doesn't have much credibility, so chucking that line on the table seems pathetic.

No-one proposed that Jesus didn't die except some weird "rationalist" (i.e. non-believing) deists in the last 250years, who anyway don't agree with one another.

So to come back to the thread, do you think there is any historical credibility at all for any part of the Islamic account of Jesus? Yes? No?

No, none whatsoever, excepting that Jesus was born of Mary and that he was a prophet. Everything else is a complete re-write of the gospels, especially that he predicted the coming of Mahomet.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So show me which translation said “boast” and let’s see if you’re correct.

I'll try to peel SA Huguenot off your leg by starting a new thread specifically addressing the issue that he is presently focused on, if you're willing. It seems clear to me he's not going to let go until the issue is given sufficient attention, ... in this thread or elsewhere.

 

[firedragon]

I'll try to peel SA Huguenot off your leg by starting a new thread specifically addressing the issue that he is presently focused on, if you're willing. It seems clear to me he's not going to let go until the issue is given sufficient attention, ... in this thread or elsewhere.

Any thread brother, I am willing to engage. After all, everyday is a learning and I will learn from you.

 

[oldbadger]

Wrong again. John and Mary, Jesus' mother was right in front of Jesus. They communicated with each other.

No they didn't!
Jesus made it quite clear back in Magdala that his only true family were his friends, those beside him in his mission. He was estranged from family.
Apostle John was not Disciple John, and although he had a bundle of useful accounts from which to build his gospel he had NO IDEA of when they occurred on any timeline. His Temple demonstration in the 1st week of his mission rather than the last....... no idea about what the group did at Jerusalem in the last week.
And then trying to convince us that he stood at the foot of the cross with Jesus's mother.
That's worth a thread, sometime.

Look.... if you want the real story, read G-Mark. No wonder Cephas was determined to make sure the true account got recorded.

Anyhow, what does this have to do with the fact that Allah say he made something to appear as if it was killed on the cross.
Dont go and sidestep the facts pal.

You've been shown quite clearly how that could fit, NT with Qu'ran...... no need to side step..... pal.

 

[oldbadger]

Why should Paul take credit for another's research? Your criticisms of Paul seem to be born of contempt, nor substance.

Both.......... born from his religious spin.
Nothing to do with Jesus's real mission at all.

He was born but he came from another place.

Huh?

No-one proposed that Jesus didn't die except some weird "rationalist" (i.e. non-believing) deists in the last 250years, who anyway don't agree with one another.

Wrong! Islam proposes, people in Kashmir propose, the NT suggests, and I agree!

No, none whatsoever, excepting that Jesus was born of Mary and that he was a prophet. Everything else is a complete re-write of the gospels, especially that he predicted the coming of Mahomet.

That's a Yes/No! answer....... you say , 'None whatever....apart from....'

Just read what you write.

 

[David1967]

Sorry brother. Its not relevant to the topic. Hope you understand.

It's simply to help me to come to an informed opinion. The means by which the Prophet Mohammed came about this information would be very beneficial information as to the historical accuracy of Jesus in the Quaran. If I misunderstood the question of this topic, then I apologize.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't....... read Paul's letters.
They have no value for me.
Paul never once described anything that Jesus actually did .......... nothing. Not one anecdote about any time, and incident, etc. So although I can see that Paul was a real person he cannot help a student of HJ.

Interesting. Paul's epistles predate the gospels, they are the earliest writings we have, and he goes to great lengths describing Jesus Christ and most certainly describes what Christ did, and he provides sources.