Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

[!Fluffy!]

Beside that of what significance is the presence for a few days of the presence of Jesus in a recognizable form?

You might as well ask what is significant about Jesus healing the sick and raising the dead, or the fact that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to a virgin, that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the old testament, or that he said "take, eat...

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26)

If one questions the significance of HOW, one must ask the one who ordained it all. That's why we call him the Author and Finisher of our faith. He made it pretty clear. So here is the significance: The point is Christ did exactly what he said he was going to do. The ultimate miracle was performed and the chains of sin and death were broken by God Incarnate forever. The new covenant was forged on the altar of His sacrifice.

 

[Popeyesays]

" You might as well ask what is significant about Jesus healing the sick and raising the dead, or the fact that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to a virgin, that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the old testament, or that he said "take, eat..."I assume you are referring to Isaiah?If so the Hebrew of the verse from Isaiah says nothing about a 'virgin' birth. The Hebrew word is Alma which means 'young women', not 'virgin.This misunderstanding in early Christianity is because Christianity largely developed in lands where Greek was spoken. The Septaguint was a Greek translation of the TaNakh. At the time and ever since, Hebrew scholars have largely been repelled by the Septaguint because it is full of translational errors.Regards,Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26)---------------------------------------------------------------------------This refers to the communion, not the crucifixion. And Jesus offered bread and wine, NOT flesh and blood. Communion is a Christian virtue like prayer, almsgiving, fasting, baptism and marriage -- all of which are symbolic, not literal.Regards,Scott

 

[lunamoth]

" You might as well ask what is significant about Jesus healing the sick and raising the dead, or the fact that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to a virgin, that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the old testament, or that he said "take, eat..."I assume you are referring to Isaiah?If so the Hebrew of the verse from Isaiah says nothing about a 'virgin' birth. The Hebrew word is Alma which means 'young women', not 'virgin.This misunderstanding in early Christianity is because Christianity largely developed in lands where Greek was spoken. The Septaguint was a Greek translation of the TaNakh. At the time and ever since, Hebrew scholars have largely been repelled by the Septaguint because it is full of translational errors.Regards,Scott

Hi Scott,

The Baha'i teachings uphold the virgin birth of Jesus, do they not?

added: 1639. Bahá'í Teachings in Agreement with Doctrines of Catholic Church Concerning the Virgin Birth
"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá'í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the 'Kitáb-i-Íqán' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá'u'lláh confirms, however, indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also 'Abdu'l-Bahá in the 'Some 490 Answered Questions', Chap. XII, p.73, explicitly states that 'Christ found existence through the Spirit of God' which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."
(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 489)


luna

 

[Popeyesays]

The virgin birth is indeed upheld, but we reconcile the Qur'an's version of that birth and the Gospel's version. They are both true, but the truth must be interpreted from both texts at once.

Are you familiar with the Quranic version of the Nativity in the Surah of Maryam (Surah 19)?

In the Qur'an it is an angel which is the instrument of God's will, and that is clearly described. In the Gospel the presence of the Angel is upheld but the nature of the instrument of God's will is not explicityly described.

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

 

[!Fluffy!]

"You might as well ask what is significant about Jesus healing the sick and raising the dead, or the fact that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to a virgin, that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the old testament, or that he said "take, eat..."I assume you are referring to Isaiah?

There are many more than Isaiah and any student of Messianic prophecies knows better but that's not even close to the point. So, for the sake of current argument please just forget the parsley and focus on the meat, lol. I was responding to your assertion there is nothing significant about Christ walking around in the flesh after the resurrection and before the ascension.

So let's try again:

Beside that of what significance is the presence for a few days of the presence of Jesus in a recognizable form?

You might as well ask what is significant about Jesus healing the sick and raising the dead, or the fact that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to a virgin, that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the old testament, or that he said "take, eat...

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26)

If one questions the significance of HOW, one must ask the one who ordained it all. That's why we call him the Author and Finisher of our faith. He made it pretty clear. So here is the significance: The point is Christ did exactly what he said he was going to do. The ultimate miracle was performed and the chains of sin and death were broken by God Incarnate forever. The new covenant was forged on the altar of His sacrifice.

.....
additional thoughts: The entire story of Jesus Christ, the idea of the virgin birth, of God incarnate walking among us humans healing the sick, raising the dead, and willingly suffering indignities and torture, finally dying in humiliating circumstances as a criminal, and resurrecting 3 days later..come on!! The whole thing is fantastic and bizarre to the extreme. It was no less so to His contemporaries, none of whom were mentally impaired AFAIK. These people were much better acquainted with the reality of death as an everyday occurrence than we are. Of COURSE they believed He was dead, they saw crucifixions every day. Why then should one puzzle over His actions towards them afterward? Why would one bother to question such a being's decision to show himself to His followers after the resurrection, or to insist on a physical inspection by Thomas, or to order food and drink to prove he wasn't a ghost, or to emphasize the fact that he was indeed the same person they knew to be dead, that he was indeed alive in the flesh JUST AS He had promised? - How would they believe it otherwise??? Did they believe the women who told them what they saw with their own eyes? No, they immediately went to the tomb themselves. What wouldn't make sense would be some kind of secret resurrection. Lazarus' resurrection was certainly made known publicly. Again, why would he NOT appear to them after the resurrection, if the resurrection was indeed a fact? What would be the significance NO post-resurrection physical appearance? Nothing in the gospels indicate such a thing, which would frankly be out of character and nonsensical.

 

[Popeyesays]

"Why would one bother to question such a being's decision to show himself to His followers after the resurrection, or to insist on a physical inspection by Thomas, or to order food and drink to prove he wasn't a ghost, or to emphasize the fact that he was indeed the same person they knew to be dead,

All of these things do not add up to Him being present in the SAME flesh that was laid away in the tomb.

that he was indeed alive in the flesh JUST AS He had promised?

In 1850 when the Bab was executed in the barracks square in Tabriz, His body was dragged to the city moat and left for the wild animals to ravage. Now the city moat was not just an open ditch anymore in Tabriz at the time, it was a covered collonade around the city, but it was not behind the current walls of the city. Shortly after the execution, European witnesses note that there was an immense sandstorm blown up out of nowhere which was so thick, the day was darkened.

We know the body was laid out there in this manner because one of the foreign ambassadors sent an artist to sketch the remains where they were dropped. The sketch exists today.

The governor of the city ordered an armed guard placed upon the remains so none could remove the body for respectful burial. The guard huddled away from the fury of the storm was not very watchful and a few believers did manage to spirit away the body of the Bab.

For fifty years the body was hidden away, moved frequently to keep the officials from finding it and desecrating the remains.

All during this time it was important to keep the truth hidden.

In the first decade of the 20th century, Abdu'l Baha erected a shrine for those remains, they were brought out of hiding and laid away. The secret was told and the remains are still there in the Shrine of Bab on the slopes of Mount Carmel.

The miracle was explained.

I would suggest the same thing happened with the body of Jesus, except by the time it was safe for those remains to be revealed, the Diaspora had begun and those people who knew the facts were unable to act upon that knowledge and the secret died out.

Joseph of Arimathea was far too smart to let the Sanhedrin keep the knowledge of the whereabouts of the remains of Jesus. He had them moved.

The appearance of Christ after His death on the cross is the result of the will and grace of God to His believers, that they might not give up in depression and disappointment, but rather forge ahead and keep the teachings of Jesus fresh and nedw for centuries to come.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

The virgin birth is indeed upheld, but we reconcile the Qur'an's version of that birth and the Gospel's version. They are both true, but the truth must be interpreted from both texts at once.

You cannot do that when one texts says the other has been altered and changed. You cannot reconcile the Quran between the Bible. There are verses tha clearly cannot be reconciled.

Are you familiar with the Quranic version of the Nativity in the Surah of Maryam (Surah 19)?

In the Qur'an it is an angel which is the instrument of God's will, and that is clearly described. In the Gospel the presence of the Angel is upheld but the nature of the instrument of God's will is not explicityly described.

This is not what needs reconciliation. Because they have the same source so there will be some similarity. we have no doubt that the angel came to her. But according to some of them they believe this holy spirit which descended on Mary is God himself. this is the contention you should address.

The reconciliation is needed between the verses where there is contention. Such as Jesus dying on the cross. Was he crucified or not . reconcile that issue and the other issue I raised. do not bring up issues where we are in somewhat of an agreement.

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

thanks.

 

[Popeyesays]

This is not what needs reconciliation. Because they have the same source so there will be some similarity. we have no doubt that the angel came to her. But according to some of them they believe this holy spirit which descended on Mary is God himself. this is the contention you should address.

The Gospel NEVER says that God descended upon Mary. The Gospel actually says:
"1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(King James Bible, Matthew)

The use of the word "Ghost" is a quirk of translation in the King James. Later versions and translations don't have that problem.

The quirk was largely caused by the Greek in the Septaguint version of the TaNakh.

These things are easier to reconcile than you allow.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

The Qur'an says God took Jesus up to Himself. Jesus passed in an inordinately short time, therefore the texts are reconciled.

Regards,
Scott

Not exactly. There is no timeline in the Qur'an to delineate when one thing happens and then another happens. The reality is that God takes up Jesus in the Ascencion 40 days after the resurrection. The fact that Jesus is commending Himself to God simply means that He is releasing His hold on the body but the spirit of God is still there because that is the nature of the spirit of God - omnipresence.

The only way there can be a distinction between God and Jesus is that in Jesus God controls the body and outside of Jesus He does not. Therefore for Jesus to be taken up by God, He must have been taken up bodily.

 

[Popeyesays]

Not exactly. There is no timeline in the Qur'an to delineate when one thing happens and then another happens. The reality is that God takes up Jesus in the Ascencion 40 days after the resurrection. The fact that Jesus is commending Himself to God simply means that He is releasing His hold on the body but the spirit of God is still there because that is the nature of the spirit of God - omnipresence.

The only way there can be a distinction between God and Jesus is that in Jesus God controls the body and outside of Jesus He does not. Therefore for Jesus to be taken up by God, He must have been taken up bodily.

That argument is from the assumption that Jesus IS God. He wasn't, so it doesn't apply. You cannot contain the oceans in a teacup and you cannot contain God within a human body.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

The Gospel NEVER says that God descended upon Mary. The Gospel actually says:
"1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(King James Bible, Matthew)

The use of the word "Ghost" is a quirk of translation in the King James. Later versions and translations don't have that problem.

The quirk was largely caused by the Greek in the Septaguint version of the TaNakh.

These things are easier to reconcile than you allow.

Regards,
Scott

I guess you are not gonna answer my questions, oh well peace

 

[maro]

So let me ask you according to our aqeedah has Jesus died? do we as muslims believed he died? If he was not killed then what happened? Did he die of some other cause?

It is clear he was not killed, meaning he is not dead? You tell me if he is dead when Allah says he raised him up to him. Am I to understand that he is dead from this verse in some other way. Explain please what the intention is for saying that there is some other context other then he is not dead.

brother ,my aqeedah comes from the quran and sunna ,
if you can bring me either a verse from the quran or hadith sahih that says jesus didn't die ,

i am going to say ( i listen and i obey ) and not argue with you

so far , my aqeedah is that jesus was not killed or crucified

wether he (Pbuh) died or not , i think there is ikhtilaf about this issue ,
and i'll try to make sure of it soon inshallah

 

[Popeyesays]

I guess you are not gonna answer my questions, oh well peace

I did answer the half of your question that was new. The Gospel does not say that God descended upon Mary to quicken her. It says the Spirit of God descended on her.

As to the other half of the question, I've answered it many times.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

That argument is from the assumption that Jesus IS God. He wasn't, so it doesn't apply. You cannot contain the oceans in a teacup and you cannot contain God within a human body.

Regards,
Scott

That is why the Father is greater than the Son. However you are in error God is not disabled by His diversity. His poer to enter in and control a body is not diminished by His omnipresence. I had to explain this to my wife who wondered who was taking care of the universe while God was in Jesus. The answer is simple God is not just in Jesus, He is everywhere else as well and the God who hears everyones prayers from everwhere is not diminished in His capacity to multi-task.

The Bible is quite clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Any spirit that says otherwise is not from God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paul does indeed speak on the topic often. Paul never saw Christ while Christ was alive. Paul was not there when Christ spoke. To take Paul's word for it seems to me to be hearsay evidence at best.

That's my personal opinion. of course. But the opinion is quite firm with me. Paul based all his writings on the Septuagint, and even before the birth of Christ lots of Rabbi's damned the Septaguint.

Regards,
Scott

We have touched on this in the past and concerning Paul (Saul) you and I agree on this issue.

His whole mission is based on him hoping the people would believe that The Messiah Isa (Yeshua) appeared to him either visually or by voice (Depending on what version he is telling to certain people).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That argument is from the assumption that Jesus IS God. He wasn't, so it doesn't apply. You cannot contain the oceans in a teacup and you cannot contain God within a human body.

Regards,
Scott

Thank you.....

Will some one finally stop this madness of Jesus (Yeshua) being God??????

PLEASE

The man (Yeshua) said that God was greater than he was. All of his praise was to God.

 

[Popeyesays]

"The Bible is quite clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Any spirit that says otherwise is not from God."

-------------------------

Okay, here's a little challenge, quopte me chapter and verse from the Gospels where Jesus makes any such claim. I have no interest in what the Epistles might say, or the Revelation or the Acts, just the Gospels. Everything else is just commentary.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"The Bible is quite clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Any spirit that says otherwise is not from God."

-------------------------

Okay, here's a little challenge, quopte me chapter and verse from the Gospels where Jesus makes any such claim. I have no interest in what the Epistles might say, or the Revelation or the Acts, just the Gospels. Everything else is just commentary.

Regards,
Scott

Once again I agree with you. The Quran backs this up.

Arberry Translation
5:110
When God said, 'Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird, by My leave; and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth by My leave; and when restrained from thee the Children of Israel when thou camest unto them with the clear signs, and the unbelievers among them said, "This is nothing but sorcery manifest."

Arberry Translation
5:116
And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?' He said, 'To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen

That's some of what the Quran says. Here's What Jesus said.

John 7:16
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me."

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

John 12:49
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak"

Mark 13:32
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Again, this is just a snippet of what Jesus said. No need to look further. Jesus is not God nor is there any place in either the Bible or the Quran where he says he is.

 

[lunamoth]

Okay, here's a little challenge, quopte me chapter and verse from the Gospels where Jesus makes any such claim. I have no interest in what the Epistles might say, or the Revelation or the Acts, just the Gospels. Everything else is just commentary.

Regards,
Scott

By that criteria, neither did Jesus claim to be the Manifestation of God. Muhammad also did not claim to be the Manifestation of God.

What did he mean when he said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)