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

[Muffled]

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 believe it is not an eyewitness account nor an interview with an eyewitness. I do believe however that God through the angel was speaking of actual events. It would be like Moses writing of the Garden of Eden. He wasn't there and wouldn't have known without God telling him.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe God hears everyone's thinking and what they say, so it is conceivable that at lest some people said or thought that.

 

[Harel13]

I believe God hears everyone's thinking and what they say, so it is conceivable that at lest some people said or thought that.

Oy vey zmir.

 

[Muffled]

It's in the Christian and Islamic scriptures.

Perhaps my memory isn't so good but I believe I don't remember seeing that in Christian scriptures. There was Gemaliel saying: Acts 5:36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

 

[Rival]

Well I did say this...

I would watch him hang again for still being a false messiah, imo

And this...

Would watch him hang. Again.

 

[lukethethird]

You see?
So you could not show where Paul knew about or bothered to recount one single incident, trip or saying from Jesus in three whole years of mission as recounted by John.

Do you see what I mean at last?

Paul died before the gospels were written, so what is it that you are expecting to read from Paul? About a Jesus from Galilee? About disciples? Paul and the other epistle writers know nothing of that and how could they if the gospels weren't written yet?

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe you are aware of how God views the shedding of innocent blood.

 

[Rival]

Paul died before the gospel story was written, so what is it that you are expecting to read from Paul? About a Jesus from Galilee? About disciples? Paul and the other epistle writers know nothing of that and how could they if the gospels weren't written yet?

Oral traditions that ended up being written as the gospels.

 

[Muffled]

Well I did say this...


And this...

I believe you would be just as forgiven by Jesus as the Pharisee because of your ignorance.

 

[lukethethird]

Oral traditions that ended up being written as the gospels.

It appears that none of the epistle writers were aware of these so called oral traditions, what makes you aware of them?

 

[oldbadger]

Paul died before the gospels were written, so what is it that you are expecting to read from Paul? About a Jesus from Galilee? About disciples? Paul and the other epistle writers know nothing of that and how could they if the gospels weren't written yet?

Because he knew the disciples.
If he had been interested then he could have taken the trouble to ask, to remember and to make mention. Jesus was the centre of the religion he was founding!

 

[Rival]

It appears that none of the epistle writers were aware of these so called oral traditions, what makes you aware of them?

Someone wrote them down. Where else are the gospels going to come from exactly? They would not have been aware of every single story that was floating around and one Church would have differed slightly from another, but the gospels didn't come out of a void. Paul is aware of Jesus' drying on a cross and his resurrection; the central message of the gospels.

 

[oldbadger]

It appears that none of the epistle writers were aware of these so called oral traditions, what makes you aware of them?

All Jewish peasants were aware of Oral Tradition. Most of them could not write so OT was their history base. They passed down their family histories using OT.

 

[lukethethird]

Because he knew the disciples.
If he had been interested then he could have taken the trouble to ask, to remember and to make mention. Jesus was the centre of the religion he was founding!

The mention of disciples is nowhere to be found in the epistles, nor Galilee, nor Nazareth, nor Mary and, Joseph, Pilate, or an empty tomb. Were you expecting to read from Paul what we find in the gospels when the gospels haven't even been written yet? How could the epistle writers possibly know about these things. They describe a very different Christianity, one that does not have the gospels to borrow from. Maybe you are confusing pre-gospel Christianity with post-gospel Christianity? That appears to be a common mistake.

 

[Rival]

All Jewish peasants were aware of Oral Tradition. Most of them could not write so OT was their history base. They passed down their family histories using OT.

Kindred the world over still do this now.

 

[lukethethird]

All Jewish peasants were aware of Oral Tradition. Most of them could not write so OT was their history base. They passed down their family histories using OT.

How do you know what people were saying back then?

 

[lukethethird]

Kindred the world over still do this now.

None of the epistle writers provide even a hint that there was this oral tradition. In fact, Paul provides his sources and he makes it more than clear that what he knows about Christ does not come from other men.

 

[Rival]

None of the epistle writers provide even a hint that there was this oral tradition. In fact, Paul provides his sources and he makes it more than clear that what he knows about Christ does not come from other men.

So where do you believe the gospel writers took their stories from? They say themselves they took it from eyewitnesses. That's an oral tradition. The eyewitnesses told them, but the witnesses didn't write it.

Every single culture and especially illiterate cultures have oral traditions. They still have them. Pretty much the only person who's contested this that I know about is you.

 

[eik]

That's Paul's problem....... he thought he had the right to decide what Christianity would become. No wonder Cephas needed to get his account in to writing.
In my opinion Paul (and John) turned a beautiful movement in to a nightmare that would fragment in to hundreds of different churches, hundreds of wars, hell... in fact.

I don't think you have any evidence that Paul turned "a beautiful movement in to a nightmare." The nightmare only began with the trinitarian philosophers, of which Paul was not one.

 

[lukethethird]

So where do you believe the gospel writers took their stories from? They say themselves they took it from eyewitnesses. That's an oral tradition. The eyewitnesses told them, but the witnesses didn't write it.

Every single culture and especially illiterate cultures have oral traditions. They still have them. Pretty much the only person who's contested this that I know about is you.

They do not say they took it from eyewitnesses, there were no witnesses and there is nothing to support the notion of this oral tradition. The epistle writers know nothing of this so called oral tradition. Interesting that you claim to know what people were saying back then.