Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

[Xbones]

Wow Scott, you are much more versitle than I thought. Perhaps you are an agn0stic like myself. An Agnostic is not the same as an atheist, but rather we do not know or pretend to know the creator of this world, that the creator of this world my be bigger than any religion, any thought. etcl...

 

[Muffled]

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=225&region=EN

Mind that ahmadiis are considering every besmele as a verse, so in numbering the verses, it is one more than usual. So you will find the same verse at the number 158.

and this is a larger commentary: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=581&region=E1&CR=

Regards

It is refreshing to find a Muslim open to God's word.

I can see from the commentary where you are coming from. However you can't hang your belief on paintings by men who were not witnesses to the event. The Bible does not say in which side Jesus was stabbed. It does say that blood and water came out. The theory is that for water to come out Jesus would have to have been stabbed in the heart because there is a sac of water in or near the heart. What I have said is that a soldier making sure that death takes place knows where the heart is and that stabbing in the heart is a way to ensure death. He would not have stabbed Jesus if it were not for the fact that He already appeared dead, otherwise he would have broken His legs as he did with the two thieves.

The concept of a natural death is intriguing. A body that dies from violence is still a natural death although in modern times we don't give it that connotation. Jesus leaving the body is a bit on the supernatural side but it still leaves the body with the ability to die from the crucifixion.

 

[Popeyesays]

It is refreshing to find a Muslim open to God's word.

I can see from the commentary where you are coming from. However you can't hang your belief on paintings by men who were not witnesses to the event. The Bible does not say in which side Jesus was stabbed. It does say that blood and water came out. The theory is that for water to come out Jesus would have to have been stabbed in the heart because there is a sac of water in or near the heart. What I have said is that a soldier making sure that death takes place knows where the heart is and that stabbing in the heart is a way to ensure death. He would not have stabbed Jesus if it were not for the fact that He already appeared dead, otherwise he would have broken His legs as he did with the two thieves.

The concept of a natural death is intriguing. A body that dies from violence is still a natural death although in modern times we don't give it that connotation. Jesus leaving the body is a bit on the supernatural side but it still leaves the body with the ability to die from the crucifixion.

Actually watery blood is nOT a sign of a puncture of the cardiac sac. It is a sign of a puncture of the lung. The fluid in the lungs mixes with the blood from the puncture alveoli in a frothy mix with the gases in the alveoli.

If the cardiac sac has fluid in it, the heart stops beating--or at least the beating is greatly diminished.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

It is refreshing to find a Muslim open to God's word.

What do you mean by "open", and the word of God?

Torah is the word of God, Injil is the word of God, and the Quran is the word of God too, not to forget that Jesus himself is a word of God too.

So?

 

[TashaN]

Brother Truth;

I have never claimed to be a MUSLIM as in one who follows the Qur'an as one's sole religion.

I am a Baha`i. In the sense that Muhammad describes Abraham as a Muslim, I, too, am a Muslim. To those who follow the Qur'an as the last word of God on earth, I AM a heretic. Needless to say, I do not believe that Muhammad is the last Prophet and the Qur'an the last revelation. To believe such does not make sense to me, it certainly is not a belief stated in the Qur'an--the traditions that insist upon that interpretation to me are false traditions.

You can't be a Baha'i and a Muslim at the same time, Scott, as anyone can't be a muslim and christian at the same time. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe thats what Bahaullah taught you that all religions are one, but from an islamic perspective, one who claim to be a follower of another religion can't be a muslim, period.

 

[Popeyesays]

Truth,

Muhammad was speaking in two different styles. When He referred to Abraham as a Muslim it was to show that the word of God is consistent throughout revelation.

In that sense I am a Muslim.

In the sense that I am a strict follower of Islam, I am not a Muslim.

Paradox is not always an enemy. It can reveal the truth in crystal clear light.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually watery blood is nOT a sign of a puncture of the cardiac sac. It is a sign of a puncture of the lung. The fluid in the lungs mixes with the blood from the puncture alveoli in a frothy mix with the gases in the alveoli.

If the cardiac sac has fluid in it, the heart stops beating--or at least the beating is greatly diminished.

Regards,
Scott

Thank you Scott......

It is nice to see some one actually does their homework or know the information.The scriptures make no indication that it was the heart.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

However you can't hang your belief on paintings by men who were not witnesses to the event.

Then we should definately dismiss Paul

The Bible does not say in which side Jesus was stabbed. It does say that blood and water came out.

The strange thing to me is that John is the scripture that reports this incident. The other three list the events similarly but are silent on this issue

 

[TashaN]

Truth,

Muhammad was speaking in two different styles. When He referred to Abraham as a Muslim it was to show that the word of God is consistent throughout revelation.

In that sense I am a Muslim.

In the sense that I am a strict follower of Islam, I am not a Muslim.

Paradox is not always an enemy. It can reveal the truth in crystal clear light.

Regards,
Scott

When did Prophet Mohammed refered to Abraham as a muslim?

 

[Popeyesays]

Surah o9f Imran, 60th verse--here translated by Rodwell:

"3:60 Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; but he was sound in the faith, a
Muslim; and not of those who add gods to God."
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 3 - The Family of Imran)

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

Surah o9f Imran, 60th verse--here translated by Rodwell:

"3:60 Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; but he was sound in the faith, a
Muslim; and not of those who add gods to God."
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 3 - The Family of Imran)

Regards,
Scott

But before you said Prophet Mohammed said this, and here you are quoting the Quran!

The Quran is the word of God, not the word of Prophet Mohammed, i think we discussed this before.

 

[Popeyesays]

But before you said Prophet Mohammed said this, and here you are quoting the Quran!

The Quran is the word of God, not the word of Prophet Mohammed, i think we discussed this before.

Brother Truth;

Muhammad heard it from God, true--but no one else heard it from God, all the Muslims of the day of the Prophet heard the word of God from Muhammad, not from God.

Surely you see the truth in that.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

Brother Truth;

Muhammad heard it from God, true--but no one else heard it from God, all the Muslims of the day of the Prophet heard the word of God from Muhammad, not from God.

Surely you see the truth in that.

Regards,
Scott

Allah said these verses and Prophet Mohammed just had to convey the message. So, its the word of God. I don't think its so hard to understand this basic concept!

 

[Popeyesays]

Allah said these verses and Prophet Mohammed just had to convey the message. So, its the word of God. I don't think its so hard to understand this basic concept!

As far as the believers were concerned, they heard Muhammad, not God. They believed that it was God speaking to them, of course, but they had to take Muhammad's word for it.

That is the nature of Reve;lation for the rest of mankind--whether it was Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad.

You believe it is the word of God BECAUSE Muhammad told the believers it was. It is not the nature of man to be able to hear the voice of God directly, that's why God sends Messengers.

Why be obtuse about it?

Regards,

Scott

 

[Muffled]

Then we should definately dismiss Paul

The strange thing to me is that John is the scripture that reports this incident. The other three list the events similarly but are silent on this issue

Paul I know the painters I don't. Paul had the Paraclete whether the painters did or not I could not say without researching their lives and works.

Now you know why we have four gospels (books about Jesus) instead of just one. John was an eyewitness the other gospel writers were not.

 

[Popeyesays]

Paul I know the painters I don't. Paul had the Paraclete whether the painters did or not I could not say without researching their lives and works.

Now you know why we have four gospels (books about Jesus) instead of just one. John was an eyewitness the other gospel writers were not.

We have four Gospels for the same reason we have multiple hadith traditions.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

We have four Gospels for the same reason we have multiple hadith traditions.

Regards,
Scott

None of the testifiers in the Hadith had the Paraclete but all the writers in the New Covenant did. The Hadith is not the word of God and is highly unreliable.

 

[Popeyesays]

None of the testifiers in the Hadith had the Paraclete but all the writers in the New Covenant did. The Hadith is not the word of God and is highly unreliable.

The Epistles are also highly unreliable.

The "Paraclete" as described by Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit but a human being with lips to speak as God directs.

The hadith sayers are allegedly quoting the Paraclete of Islam, just as the writers of the Gospels did, but from first hand and we know who precisely are the speakers of the hadith.

Don't get me wrong, 'hadith' is third best compared to the actual words of the Prophet of God. "Hadith", however is all that the New Testament has to offer.

Regards,

Scott

 

[TashaN]

As far as the believers were concerned, they heard Muhammad, not God. They believed that it was God speaking to them, of course, but they had to take Muhammad's word for it.

That is the nature of Reve;lation for the rest of mankind--whether it was Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad.

You believe it is the word of God BECAUSE Muhammad told the believers it was. It is not the nature of man to be able to hear the voice of God directly, that's why God sends Messengers.

Why be obtuse about it?

Regards,

Scott

I'm confused now, i thought that as a Baha'i, you believe the Quran to be the word of God, but what i read from your words in here is that you just assume it's the word of God because you just have to in order to hug all religions together and put them into one basket, but the truth is, i don't think you believe the Quran to be the word of God, but the word of Mohammed and it doesn't matter whether God talked to them directly or through someone if its his words. Correct me please if i'm mistaken in my assesment.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm confused now, i thought that as a Baha'i, you believe the Quran to be the word of God, but what i read from your words in here is that you just assume it's the word of God because you just have to in order to hug all religions together and put them into one basket, but the truth is, i don't think you believe the Quran to be the word of God, but the word of Mohammed and it doesn't matter whether God talked to them directly or through someone if its his words. Correct me please if i'm mistaken in my assesment.

It IS the word of God. It calls out to me, and I embrace it. I embrace it because the Prophet speaks or writes so I can hear or read.

God speaks to the Prophet. The Prophet speaks to me. I cannot perceive or recognize God otherwise.

Can you? You're being obtuse again--is it on purpose or just circumstantial?

Regards,
Scott