Muslims and Christians Only: Was Jesus Crucified Or Not?

[Union]

Translational changes regarding crucifixion event

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : [youtube]phvGGeoPOPg[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

So, now let me summarize my response... We believe that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified, first and foremost, because the Qur'an (which is the unaltered verbatim word of God) says so and secondly, because even the Christian scriptures have many inconsistent and contradictory accounts of the event which makes it less believable.

Peace.

Wow LoT , you gave a news man .

Both guys called Jesus .
Both guys had title Bar Abba ( The son of Father ( Jesus referred GOD as 'Abba' many times )).
Both guys were seized to crucify .

Now if the news spread - Jesus was crucified - there was a high possibility of confusion - which one ?

Since also there was no eye-witnesses of Jesus' crucifixion from his 12 disciples who originated the story , could also be confused .

That justified what Qur'an claimed :

"...but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it wade made to appear to them... (Al Quran 4:157)

 

[Union]

GOD promised to save HIS Messiah​

GOD’s oaths and determinations to do a task are much more substantiate, stronger and unfailing than anything . GOD Almighty assured us in the Bible that HE is not going let HIS anointed down for any reason , for any circumstances . HE is going to save HIS anointed from any humiliation or any shameful torture by their enemies. As Jesus (p) was certainly HIS anointed (messiah or Christ) and a great prophet HE must have saved him also from any humiliating situation such as Christians and Jews claim like tearing his dresses to make him naked in public , lashing him , rebuke him using slang , drag him and kick him on the road , put dirty cough direct on the face, torturing him severely on the cross , mocking at him at that agonizing moment etc.

01. Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed (Messiah or Christ); He answers him from His holy heaven with the saving power of His right hand. (Psalms 20:6)

02. "Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm." (1Chronicles 16:22)

03. O LORD God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember the great love promised to David your servant. (2Chronicles 6:42)

04. Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.The LORD [is] their strength, and he [is] the saving strength of his anointed. (Psalms 28:8)

05. For the sake of David your servant, do not reject your anointed one. The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne- (Psalms 132:10-11)

06. You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, 2 say to the Lord, “My refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust.” 3 God will rescue you from the fowler’s snare, from the destroying plague… 11 FOR GOD COMMANDS THE ANGELS TO GUARD YOU IN ALL YOUR WAYS. 12 With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone… (Psalm 91:1)

07. 15 The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry. 16 The face of the LORD is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth. 17 The righteous cry, and the LORD hears, and delivers them out of all their troubles. 18 The LORD is near to the broken-hearted; and saves those who are of a contrite spirit. 19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. 20 He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. (Psalm 34:15-20)

8. “41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw. And He kneeled down and prayed, 42 saying, Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done. 43 And an angel appeared to Him from Heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22: 41-43)


Here Jesus (p) prayed strongly to GOD to save him from the suffering , humiliation and torture to death from his enemies Jews . Then an angel appeared to him to strengthening him . But what purpose for the angel was appearing by his side ? Was Jesus (p) afraid of death ? NO . The answer hides in the scripture:

“ You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, 2 say to the Lord, “My refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust.” 3 God will rescue you from the fowler’s snare, from the destroying plague… 11 for GOD commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. 12 With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone… “ (Psalm 91)

This is not the first time that angel came to Jesus (p) to protect him from any filthy plot of his enemies but angels always came to Jesus (p) by the leave of GOD to take care of him every now and then :

“Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” (Matthew 4:11)

“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (Matthew 13:41)

9. ” 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered..” (Hebrew 5: 7-8)

The book of Hebrew also confirms us that the prayer of Jesus (p) made in Gethsemane with tear, sweat and blood was accepted to GOD . His earnest prayer at that moment was to save him from the death by crucifixion that the cursed Jews planned .

 

[Hawkins]

Hello everyone. I want to have a debate between Muslims and Christians only. I do not want anyone else to participate in the debate.

So, the question is this: Was Jesus crucified or not? As for me, I strongly believe that He was indeed crucified but the Quran states that He was not crucified. Here is the evidence for believing that He was indeed crucified:

In addition to the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus we also have the testimony of Josephus, a Jewish historian; Tacitus, a Roman historian; and a possible reference to His crucifixion in the Babylonian Talmud. There is also a letter from a person named Mara Bar-Serapion which mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. You can see more about these evidences at Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

So, Muslims, why do you believe that Jesus was not crucified? Please provide rebuttals.

The point is, if the crucifixion is a truth how can humans usually reach such a truth?

The only way for humans to get to such a truth is,

1) allow "eye witnesses" to write it down.
2) ask for the spreading of such a message
3) demand your faith to believe so
+
4) the witnesses are willing to martyr themselves

That's the only way such a truth can reach today's humans. And they were all done.

It is very similar to any historical event. 1) you need witnesses to write it down for others (say, today's humans) to believe with faith. God has done much more than what should be done for a historical truth to be conveyed. He did the following in extra.

1) Martyred His chosen witnesses
2) Urged for the spreading of the message (Gospel)
3) Demanded your faith to believe, as faith is the only way for humans to reach a historical truth!

 

[loverOfTruth]

The point is, if the crucifixion is a truth how can humans usually reach such a truth?

The only way for humans to get to such a truth is,

1) allow "eye witnesses" to write it down.
2) ask for the spreading of such a message
3) demand your faith to believe so
+
4) the witnesses are willing to martyr themselves

That's the only way such a truth can reach today's humans. And they were all done.

It is very similar to any historical event. 1) you need witnesses to write it down for others (say, today's humans) to believe with faith. God has done much more than what should be done for a historical truth to be conveyed. He did the following in extra.

1) Martyred His chosen witnesses
2) Urged for the spreading of the message (Gospel)
3) Demanded your faith to believe, as faith is the only way for humans to reach a historical truth!

Except that there is a huge problem with the very first one - "allow eye witnesses to write it down" - which breaks down everything else that you stated.

You really cannot claim the 'Gospels' as an 'eyewitness account' because nobody really knows for sure who wrote them and where and also since the originals don't exist. So how can you trust an anonymous author to write an accurate account of events that happened centuries before ?

From : Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[7] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][8][9][10] but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown.

From: Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."[4] On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."
They don't even know for sure which language Matthew was written in.

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[38] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[13] "

"Most modern scholars agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources.[29] The understanding that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke is foundational to modern critical scholarship."

Again the supposed Gospel of Luke is also a copy of a material with unknown source(Mark).

From: Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD."

Had it been the case as you claim ... you certainly wouldn't have contradictions such as follows :

Did Jesus bear his own cross?
Yes (John 19:17)
No (Matthew 27:31-32)

Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?
On the cross (Mark 15:33)
In Pilates court (John 19:14)

Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
Yes. (Mark 15:34-36)
No. (John 19:28-29)

Was he Crucified or Hanged ?
Hanged. Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Crucified. Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Peace.

 

[Hawkins]

Except that there is a huge problem with the very first one - "allow eye witnesses to write it down" - which breaks down everything else that you stated.

You really cannot claim the 'Gospels' as an 'eyewitness account' because nobody really knows for sure who wrote them and where and also since the originals don't exist. So how can you trust an anonymous author to write an accurate account of events that happened centuries before ?

You are confused because you don't really know what history is. Tell me which history book has been confirmed to be written down by someone?

You need even faith to believe who wrote what. That's the nature of what history is. And historians mostly are not necessarily direct witnesses, that doesn't discredit what they wrote. Just like Luke may not be a direct witness but he can still write it precisely by researching into what have been said and done by the direct witnesses. It is in similar fashion of all history alike.

On the other hand, the martyrdom remains a valid account as no one is willing to die for a false witnessing. Again, if you would like to argue, you may also argue that they didn't die at all the way said, as by the very nature of history you need faith to believe they died the way as said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm still waiting for a reason to trust a 7th century book over what 1st century sources have to say about Jesus' death.

 

[Phil25]

Hello everyone. I want to have a debate between Muslims and Christians only. I do not want anyone else to participate in the debate.

So, the question is this: Was Jesus crucified or not? As for me, I strongly believe that He was indeed crucified but the Quran states that He was not crucified. Here is the evidence for believing that He was indeed crucified:

In addition to the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus we also have the testimony of Josephus, a Jewish historian; Tacitus, a Roman historian; and a possible reference to His crucifixion in the Babylonian Talmud. There is also a letter from a person named Mara Bar-Serapion which mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. You can see more about these evidences at Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

So, Muslims, why do you believe that Jesus was not crucified? Please provide rebuttals.

Jesus was crucified and rose again on the 3rd day and ascended into heaven after 40 days and shall come again to judge both the living and the dead.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm still waiting for a reason to trust a 7th century book over what 1st century sources have to say about Jesus' death.

Because the Muslim claim is that not only are the Gospel texts corrupt, but the Qur'an itself is the verbatim word of God.

It hinges on whether or not you accept the Qur'an's claims about itself.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because the Muslim claim is that not only are the Gospel texts corrupt, but the Qur'an itself is the verbatim word of God.

It hinges on whether you accept the Qur'an claims about itself.

Indeed. I'm just waiting for a good non-religious, logical reason why I should. Not an argument that amounts to "just because" or unfounded conspiracy theories or misunderstanding.

 

[Glaurung]

I don't think you'll ever get that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think you'll ever get that.

Nope!

 

[loverOfTruth]

You are confused because you don't really know what history is. Tell me which history book has been confirmed to be written down by someone?

You need even faith to believe who wrote what. That's the nature of what history is. And historians mostly are not necessarily direct witnesses, that doesn't discredit what they wrote. Just like Luke may not be a direct witness but he can still write it precisely by researching into what have been said and done by the direct witnesses. It is in similar fashion of all history alike.

If you think history is based on 'faith'...I don't know what to tell you. But regardless, history is verifiable through documentations, writings and if there exists contradictions, inconsistencies and mistakes then it is not accurate history and certainly not one to be relied upon. And that's not my opinion. Bart Ehrman, who is a well known NT scholar with knowledge of Biblical manuscript and their textual integrity as well as early Christian history has to say this about those books :

"Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

What's the problem ? Problem is due to not having originals and having error ridden copies, the religion changed over time. One example here ..."The view of Jesus as divine did not develop in every early Christian community at the same time or in the same way. For centuries there continued to be some communities that did not hold to this view, such as the Ebionites. In some communities the view came into being remarkably early (evidently in Paul's). In others there is no evidence that it happened at all(Matthew or Mark's). In others it took several decades (John's). But by the second and third centuries it became quite a common doctrine as there various communities exchanged views. Jesus was not simply the Jewish son of God whom God had exalted at his resurrection. He was himself God. This was one of the most enduring theological creations of the early Christian church." p 254, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)- Bart D. Ehrman

So as you can see, not only there are mistakes, contradictions and inconsistencies in the surviving copies of copies of copies of ... but there's no way to tell what was in the original and what was not. Not to mention that for any verse in the modern day NT, you cannot say this was said by Jesus(pbuh) for sure as was reported(written or oral) by X (who heard from Jesus(pbuh)) who passed on to Y who passed on to Z who passed on to us in written form. So there's no way to link the statements/events back to Jesus(pbuh) or his companions - so there's no way you can be sure. So that's precisely why it cannot be claimed as an eye witness account.

That's why Muslims don't have blind faith - we believe in faith based on evidence. Clearly, in the case of Christianity, evidence is lacking. Again, you can listen to Yusuf Estes's story to see how Islam has proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69MCV8Qp6A.

On the other hand, the martyrdom remains a valid account as no one is willing to die for a false witnessing. Again, if you would like to argue, you may also argue that they didn't die at all the way said, as by the very nature of history you need faith to believe they died the way as said.

That is not proof of anything. I expect any companions of God's Prophet to sacrifice for the sake of preaching the message of God (which is usually denied by a group of the population)....doesn't mean the Prophet was Crucified.

No offense to any of my Christian brothers and sisters...but I guess that's how it unfolded in history and that's why God sent the Final Messenger Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) to correct it. According to the Quran, Jesus himself puts any false claims about his identity to rest: “‘I told them only what You commanded me to: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them. Ever since You took my soul, You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things’” (5:117). Really ? Check out the Forgotten Sayings of Jesus

Peace.

p.s: By the way, Ramadan (the Muslim month of fasting) is starting tomorrow...so I'll be busy worshiping the Creator and may not have time to visit the forum and give replies.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I'm still waiting for a reason to trust a 7th century book over what 1st century sources have to say about Jesus' death.

I think that is a very valid and reasonable question. Let's see why ...

Do you believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve ? Do you believe in the story of Noah's flood ? Do you believe that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God ? Do you know how old those stories are - definitely way more than six centuries apart. Why do you believe in them then ?

My point being, it is not about time lapsed between the stories or the books written. It is all about the authenticity and the reliability of the books as well as evidence as to whether or not it is from God.

So here's how it works....
First, we establish the evidence for the Truth of Islam as discussed here :
Evidence for the Truth of Islam

Once I have evidence that God is True and that Islam and hence the Qur'an is from God, I have no reason to deny anything it states (note that Muslims believe based on evidence that Qur'an is the Verbatim word of God).

So if you have an error ridden copies of a book from the 1st century(where the authors cannot agree on who was Jesus, how he died and many more issues etc.) claiming to be from God where there are clear mistakes, contradictions and inconsistencies and then you have a book from the 7th century claiming to be from God which is not only free of any contradictions, it consists of corrections of stories stated in the 1st century book and presents proof of its validity ... which one would you rather believe ?

I end with what the Qur'an says : "O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah(God) except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs." (4:171)

Peace.

 

[Union]

A 8000 BC book said that the earth was created from the moon and a 2000 AD book said the opposite - why believing the latter , because the 8000 BC book is closer to the creation of the earth .

A dead man on the cross who said before his death ' Eli Eli Lama Sbachtani' ( meaning GOD had already left him ) suddenly became alive after 03 days - logically , scientifically , archaeologically and morally a fake story indeed .

On the other hand a man was rescued from the torture of crucifixion and said ' GOD is with me' and remain alive and fresh till his natural death- logically , scientifically , archaeologically and morally a great story indeed .

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hello all.

I've been wanting to post here but every time I come close to that I change my mind and pull back out of fear that I could offend my Cristian brethren. I hope, that now I collected the courage to do it, I can do it with complete respect.

I won't refer to any quotes and I'll be contempt with my logic for now. Christians believe Jesus was/is God or the Son of God. If He was God, I can't grasp the idea that He was crucified and killed, or having Himself killed for humanity instead of doing something else good for them with His absolute power and will. Should he have been the Son of God, I also can't believe God allowed his son to be killed in such a way as God again has absolute power and will.

I apologize in advance if I sounded offensive, and if so, I assure you that it was my intention.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

You don't have to be a Christian to believe that Jesus was crucified. Read Tacitus on Nero's reaction to the great fire in Rome:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

He evidently accepted the crucifixion, but he hardly comes across as a Christian believer! If Muhammad believed otherwise, then he was simply misinformed.

 

[Pastek]

You don't have to be a Christian to believe that Jesus was crucified. Read Tacitus on Nero's reaction to the great fire in Rome:

He evidently accepted the crucifixion, but he hardly comes across as a Christian believer! If Muhammad believed otherwise, then he was simply misinformed.

We don't believe that it was Jesus who was crucified, we never said they didn't try to crucify him.

4.157 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.
(Sahih international)


4.157 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
(Yusuf Ali)

We just say, they think it was him but it wasn't him.


Here a Tafsir :

And yet they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but he, the one slain and crucified, who was an associate of theirs [the Jews], was given the resemblance, of Jesus. In other words, God cast his [Jesus’s] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus].
(...) the face is that of Jesus, but the body is not his, and so it is not he; and others said: no, it is he. (...)
‘instead, they follow conjecture regarding him, that which they imagined [they saw]’

Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs -

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I know what you believe, but you're asking me to accept a text written hundreds of years later in preference to one written only 70 years after the event. And that's not taking into account the fact that Tacitus was a skilled historian, while the Quran is full of other demonstrable mistakes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that is a very valid and reasonable question. Let's see why ...

Do you believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve ? Do you believe in the story of Noah's flood ? Do you believe that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God ? Do you know how old those stories are - definitely way more than six centuries apart. Why do you believe in them then ?

We're not talking about the Flood or Moses. We're talking about the crucifixion and you're asking me to believe a book written centuries after the fact over 1st century eyewitnesses like the Apostle John.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hello all.

I've been wanting to post here but every time I come close to that I change my mind and pull back out of fear that I could offend my Cristian brethren. I hope, that now I collected the courage to do it, I can do it with complete respect.

I won't refer to any quotes and I'll be contempt with my logic for now. Christians believe Jesus was/is God or the Son of God. If He was God, I can't grasp the idea that He was crucified and killed, or having Himself killed for humanity instead of doing something else good for them with His absolute power and will. Should he have been the Son of God, I also can't believe God allowed his son to be killed in such a way as God again has absolute power and will.

I apologize in advance if I sounded offensive, and if so, I assure you that it was my intention.

(Other Christians forgive me for taking the honour of the first reply to this excellent comment.) That is an understandable thing to say. There is a very small number of Christians, somewhere between 5-20%, who view Jesus as purely mortal and not God. I am guessing at the percentage. Whatever the true percentage is, it shows you that this is a teaching that Christians have trouble with sometimes even though Christians almost always view Jesus as more important than any of the prophets. That Jesus dies, well that is part of the dilemma as well as the question of why he should have had to die.

In the orthodox and catholic groups there is almost always a strict adherence to the trinitarian creeds, however these groups do sometimes allow differences in point of view over how the trinity works and the nature of the death of Jesus. I personally think this is due to the overwhelming importance of eucharist (breaking bread). What I mean is that as long as a catholic person takes eucharist, they can think that the Father is higher than Jesus or any number of variant thoughts. (Talking about them may cause some chaffing.) Participation in eucharist is mandatory for Christians, and eucharist is much more important than doctrines and came long before creeds.

The eucharist in my opinion is more important than creeds, and if I ever am in charge (which I won't ever be nor will any man) I will banish the creeds. It is best to consider them to be like the vow in Numbers 30:4 which was invalid the moment it was made. If you take a look at what the current pope is doing, you can see what he believes. He stays busy, and he doesn't criticize people all the time. That is the central message in the eucharist. If all the catholics and all the protestants start doing that I think you will observe worldwide a huge change in the nature of Christianity. Then there will be less confusion and disagreement between Muslims and Christians.