• 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!

Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Mujahid,

I am familiar with Dr. Erdmann and I respect his work a great deal. I think this quotation from a public debate probably sums up the argument you are making:

"After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. They were trying to convert both Jews and Gentiles. How do you convert somebody to stop worshipping their God and to start worshipping Jesus? You have to tell stories about Jesus. So you convert somebody on the basis of the stories you tell. That person converts somebody who converts somebody who converts somebody, and all along the line people are telling stories.

The way it works is this: I’m a businessman in Ephesus, and somebody comes to town and tells me stories about Jesus, and on the basis of these stories I hear, I convert. I tell my wife these stories. She converts. She tells the next-door neighbor the stories. She converts. She tells her husband the stories. He converts. He goes on a business trip to Rome, and he tells people there the stories. They convert. Those people who’ve heard the stories in Rome, where did they hear them from? They heard them from the guy who lived next door to me. Well, was he there to see these things happen? No. Where’d he hear them from? He heard them from his wife. Where did his wife hear them from? Was she there? No. She heard them from my wife. Where did my wife
hear them from? She heard them from me. Well, where did I hear them from? I wasn’t there either.

Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don’t need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell my students that the reason we don’t notice there’s so many differences in the Gospels is because we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom. . . .

The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which
Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It depends which Gospel you read.

Or take the accounts of the resurrection. Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone or was it Mary with other women? If it was Mary with other women, how many other women were there, which ones were they, and what were their names? Was the stone rolled away before they got there or not? What did they see in the tomb? Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends which account you read. What were they told to tell the disciples? Were the disciples supposed to stay in Jerusalem and see Jesus there or were they to go to Galilee and see Jesus there? Did the women tell anyone or not? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem or did they immediately leave Jerusalem and go to Galilee? All of these depend on which account you read.

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. \ . . .

These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent.

Continued
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Continued:

But even if these stories were the best sources in the world, there would still be a major obstacle that we simply cannot overcome if we want to approach the question of the resurrection historically rather than theologically. I’m fine if Bill wants to argue that theologically God raised Jesus from the dead or even if he wants to argue theologically that Jesus was raised from the dead. But this cannot be a historical claim, and not for the reason that he imputed to me as being an old, warmed over 18th century view that has been refuted ever since. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things

in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. . . .

What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won’t say they’re impossible. You might think they are impossible and, if you do think so, then you’re going to agree with my argument even more than I’m going to agree with my argument. I’m just going to say that miracles are so highly improbable that they’re the least possible occurrence in any given instance. They violate the way nature naturally works. They are so highly improbable, their probability is infinitesimally remote, that we call them miracles. No one on the face of this Earth can walk on lukewarm water. What are the chances that one of us could do it? Well, none of us can, so let’s say the chances are one in ten billion. Well, suppose somebody can. Well, given the chances are one in
ten billion, but, in fact, none of us can.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can
only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.
"

there isn't a single word in that with which I feel a need to disagree.

It is as sensible a piece of writing as I could imagine. I believe it to the dot.

However, it makes no never mind when one considers that Faith must be taken spiritually, on faith. It is the same point Dr. Erdman makes.

Now SPIRITUALLY does the difference of narrative make any significant difference in the spiritual truth of all the accounts? Not a bit.

Do I believe Christ's body perished on the cross and was buried in a tomb and the tombb was found empty afterwards? Yes, I do.

Does that mean the body from the tomb came to life and was Jesus Christ again?
No, it does not.

The Christ that appeared to the Apostles after the crucifixion was a manifestation of God's will. Was it the same body that had been decomposing since Friday afternoon? I doubt it. Felsh is of no significance to the Resurrection.

There were TWO resurrections that day, and the appearance of Christ to mary at the tomb is not that significant compared to the resurrection of faith and purpose that the Apostles experienced. From the depths of depression they lifted their heads and carried the Cause of Christ to the world with amazing success--a success that in itself proves that God's hand was at work.

Differences in the text are unimportant in light of that rebirth.

When they buried Jesus in that tomb the cause of Christ was lost. The Apostles had given up.

When Mary reported the tomb empty and the Apostles became reinvigorated by the experience of beholding Christ in the Spirit and that made them victorious.

The Cause of Muhammad is assured even if the Yemeni texts prove to be at variance from the Qur'an we know. Both the Gospels and the Qur'an are the word of God and come under the protection of God. The Cause of God can never be gainsaid, detoured or defeated.

What are we arguing about? Nothing at all.

One can read the entire debate at:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Regards,
Scott

 

JayHawes

Active Member
The Quran is not a reliable testimony of the Life of Jesus. I'd rather believe those who were actually there, not alive 600 years later.
 

UnityNow101

Well-Known Member
Actually, the Gospel of Thomas has been argued to have been written as early as the canonical gospels, although it is not a traditional gospel as much as it is a grouping of Jesus' sayings.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Quran is not a reliable testimony of the Life of Jesus. I'd rather believe those who were actually there, not alive 600 years later.

It is not the purpose of the Qur'an to be a testimony of the life of Jesus, the Gospel does that.

Regards,
Scott
 

JayHawes

Active Member
Actually, the Gospel of Thomas has been argued to have been written as early as the canonical gospels, although it is not a traditional gospel as much as it is a grouping of Jesus' sayings.

Some evidence says otherwise. I know of the information you refer to, but it's more close to the very end of the 1st Cenutry, long after Thomas was dead.
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
Continued:

But even if these stories were the best sources in the world, there would still be a major obstacle that we simply cannot overcome if we want to approach the question of the resurrection historically rather than theologically. I’m fine if Bill wants to argue that theologically God raised Jesus from the dead or even if he wants to argue theologically that Jesus was raised from the dead. But this cannot be a historical claim, and not for the reason that he imputed to me as being an old, warmed over 18th century view that has been refuted ever since. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things

in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. . . .

What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won’t say they’re impossible. You might think they are impossible and, if you do think so, then you’re going to agree with my argument even more than I’m going to agree with my argument. I’m just going to say that miracles are so highly improbable that they’re the least possible occurrence in any given instance. They violate the way nature naturally works. They are so highly improbable, their probability is infinitesimally remote, that we call them miracles. No one on the face of this Earth can walk on lukewarm water. What are the chances that one of us could do it? Well, none of us can, so let’s say the chances are one in ten billion. Well, suppose somebody can. Well, given the chances are one in
ten billion, but, in fact, none of us can.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can
only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.
"

there isn't a single word in that with which I feel a need to disagree.

It is as sensible a piece of writing as I could imagine. I believe it to the dot.


However, it makes no never mind when one considers that Faith must be taken spiritually, on faith. It is the same point Dr. Erdman makes.
But that is not mine, it is his.

Now SPIRITUALLY does the difference of narrative make any significant difference in the spiritual truth of all the accounts? Not a bit.
Difference of narrative gives two different spiritual truth.

If the text account is not based on absolute truth then how can it be spiritually correct. and the difference is quite significant when we are talking about testimony. I do not care what you believe. Some people believe Elvis is alive, you gonna believe that also. I want to know what the text say in light of everyone's belief.

Do I believe Christ's body perished on the cross and was buried in a tomb and the tombb was found empty afterwards? Yes, I do.
based on what? If you say the Bible and the Quran and from God. and one contradicts what the other says how can they both be from God. Because to any mind with the simplest faculties working can see that they will not agree and cannot be from the same source.

Does that mean the body from the tomb came to life and was Jesus Christ again?
No, it does not.
That is something I am sure many of the Christians themselves will argue.

The Christ that appeared to the Apostles after the crucifixion was a manifestation of God's will. Was it the same body that had been decomposing since Friday afternoon? I doubt it. Felsh is of no significance to the Resurrection.

There were TWO resurrections that day, and the appearance of Christ to mary at the tomb is not that significant compared to the resurrection of faith and purpose that the Apostles experienced. From the depths of depression they lifted their heads and carried the Cause of Christ to the world with amazing success--a success that in itself proves that God's hand was at work.
So where are the teaching of words of those who sat in the school of prophethood with Issa the son of Mary.

Where are there books and accounts written by the companions in the original language of Jesus.

Differences in the text are unimportant in light of that rebirth.
Wow, so if I give two different account of the same event to a judge in terms of testimony of an individual. You say that different testimonies of events do not matter.

That is quite interesting. Well you

When they buried Jesus in that tomb the cause of Christ was lost. The Apostles had given up.
Interesting theory do you have the testimony of the Apostles who walked with Jesus to back up your claim

When Mary reported the tomb empty and the Apostles became reinvigorated by the experience of beholding Christ in the Spirit and that made them victorious.
Yes but was it just mary that was there. And why do we not have her testimony of it where is her gospel of testimony on events..

The Cause of Muhammad is assured even if the Yemeni texts prove to be at variance from the Qur'an we know.
The Yemini texts prove nothing. If i took the Quran Uthman had and said you know what I am going to write my own Quran. And I do is that a variance in the Text, it maybe but only in the one I have. the Quran is the quran once you change even one letter from its specific pronunciation of each word then it is not the Quran it is something you created.

Besides there is no variance in the Quran, the Quran we have today is the same one he taught his companions, and the companions taught the tabi'een, and the tabi'een taught the tabi tabi'een. No change in the recitatiion it has been protected from alteration and corruption for over 1400 years. Can the bible say that.





Both the Gospels and the Qur'an are the word of God and come under the protection of God. The Cause of God can never be gainsaid, detoured or defeated.
Amazing they are both words of God yet the bible never claims to be that. the Quran contradicts the bible statements on many of the christian ideologies. The Quran tells how what the christians believe about Allah and Jesus and certain events surrounding his life are false and untrue. Yet you still maintain they are from the same source. the Quran says the bible has changed. The christians err in saying God is three etc. etc. many many verses where the Quran says the bible and the christians are misguided and doomed to eternal hellfire because they follow the teachings of a book which was taken with a responsibility of preserving all the text therein, and they who were given charge of it, changed it and altered it so much so that it is no longer God's word. it is something there own hands produced.

Truly amazing how they are from the same source yet one says the other is false. truly amazing how in light of all these points you still feel they are from the same God.
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
The Quran is not a reliable testimony of the Life of Jesus.
You have never read it so how would you know what it says about Jesus and his blessed mother and tribe.


I'd rather believe those who were actually there, not alive 600 years later.
So where is the testimony of these eye witnessess to the events, because none of the people were there. Paul was definitely not there, Luke was not there. Yet you accept there testimony

Paul was not there yet he is the highest authority in your religion.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Mujahid,

Are you familiar with the English saying "That's just making mountains out of molehills."?

That's what you're doing. I don't really want to participate in making mountains of molehills, when the important thing is to make molehills of mountains. judaism, christianity, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and the Baha`i Faith are all from the same Source--God.

I ask again, what are we arguing about? I answer again: Nothing at all.

"O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces towards unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you. Then will the effulgence of the world's great Luminary envelop the whole earth, and its inhabitants become the citizens of one city, and the occupants of one and the same throne. This wronged One hath, ever since the early days of His life, cherished none other desire but this, and will continue to entertain no wish except this wish. There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you. This, verily, is the most exalted Word which the Mother Book hath sent 218 down and revealed unto you. To this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur from His habitation of glory."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 217)


regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
You have never read it so how would you know what it says about Jesus and his blessed mother and tribe.


So where is the testimony of these eye witnessess to the events, because none of the people were there. Paul was definitely not there, Luke was not there. Yet you accept there testimony

Paul was not there yet he is the highest authority in your religion.

I am well aware of the Surah of Maryam--in four English translations, I've read the whole of the Qur'an. I can quote sections of it.

Regards,
Scott
 

UnityNow101

Well-Known Member
I think that we are arguing over something of very little importance. What difference does it truly make whether Jesus was boldily raised or spiritually raised into Heaven? We know that flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, which would suggest that no mortal body will go into Heaven while veiled in flesh and blood. Either way, we know that the glorious Jesus Christ ascended unto God...Whether that was bodily or spiritually.
 

MBones

Member
it is all fiction anyway. No matter what tounge it was written in. No matter what verse, The Bible and all of it's versions, the Quran, the old testament, the holy scrolls, the etc... was all a fiction book to keep people "at the time" in control , to obey gods laws, and not be criminals, when are we all going to get that? It was a fiction book written at the time to set laws on the then citizens, not to be taken literally today. We could not and should not take the bible in to terms today, the world is far from what it was then and far different from today.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
it is all fiction anyway. No matter what tounge it was written in. No matter what verse, The Bible and all of it's versions, the Quran, the old testament, the holy scrolls, the etc... was all a fiction book to keep people "at the time" in control , to obey gods laws, and not be criminals, when are we all going to get that? It was a fiction book written at the time to set laws on the then citizens, not to be taken literally today. We could not and should not take the bible in to terms today, the world is far from what it was then and far different from today.


Goody! Another Evangelical Atheist.

Regards,
Scott
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
it is all fiction anyway. No matter what tounge it was written in. No matter what verse, The Bible and all of it's versions, the Quran, the old testament, the holy scrolls, the etc... was all a fiction book to keep people "at the time" in control , to obey gods laws, and not be criminals, when are we all going to get that? It was a fiction book written at the time to set laws on the then citizens, not to be taken literally today. We could not and should not take the bible in to terms today, the world is far from what it was then and far different from today.

It's usually helpful to make comments like this prefaced by "I believe" or "It is my opinion," since when it comes to religion there are so many things that cannot be proved.

Or, if you think your statement above is as factual as an observation that Pv=nRt, by all means start a separate thread on the subject.

That's a "proof" I've love to see, since no one seems to have come up with it yet.
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
Mujahid,

Are you familiar with the English saying "That's just making mountains out of molehills."?

That's what you're doing. I don't really want to participate in making mountains of molehills, when the important thing is to make molehills of mountains. judaism, christianity, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and the Baha`i Faith are all from the same Source--God.
If you say so, I am still waiting for your evidence to prove they are all from God. But I know you cannot produce it.

I ask again, what are we arguing about? I answer again: Nothing at all.
I am asking you to show me how and in what manner all these religions come from the same God. Because if that is the case then God meant for us all to be confused and argumentative to each other.

There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God.
So if there is one heavenly source, and one god. Then there is only one religion.


The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose.
Which ones came out of human perversity and where is your evidence.

did not the bible get written by human perversity, does not the Quran imply this.


Just provide the evidence thanks
 
Top