"And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so".
Why is it that Islam can provide only onesinglesolitary Koranic example of Jesus’ crucifixion?
Especially since there are numerous Koranic examples just waiting to be included - which confirm that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified until death upon the cross.
To use one Koranic verse as evidence for an entire belief system is just plain poor theology.
This is especially true when the entire belief system teeters upon onesingleword in this onesingleverse.
What if this one pivital word was mistranslated?
Well...it has been.
Here is the correct rendering for the Islamic one-hit-wonder that all followers of Islam are trained to place before all who question their faith…
4.157 Andtheir saying: "Truly we killedThe Messiah, Jesus,Mary's son,“allah's”messenger”,and that they killed him,and that they crucified him, and certainly theyalike, and truly whomthey differedin Him,certainly they (are) not indoubt from Him,on account of Him, from knowledge, exceptto followthebelief, and that theysurelykilled him.
As we can see, this is the correct rendering…and there is no conflict with the Biblical record, from which it was copied from.
4.157 Andtheir saying: "Truly we killedThe Messiah, Jesus,Mary's son,“allah's”messenger”,and that they killed him,and that they crucified him, and certainly theyalike, and truly whomthey differedin Him,certainly they (are) not indoubt from Him,on account of Him, from knowledge, exceptto followthebelief, and that theysurelykilled him.
As we can see, this is the correct rendering…and there is no conflict with the Biblical record, from which it was copied from.
You say this is the correct rendering, but please provide some references for your claim.
Whose rendering is this?
The word ما in Arabic is a negating particle and appears several times in that verse, but your translation appears to omit that negating particle in every instance.
[/color]
Assuming that 'Jesus' attached to Barrabas is from the original, which is a big if, it's most likely that Matthew is deliberately creating a contrast
Lets remember that this is a theologial document written 40 years later, and not the earliest such document, based upon the signficance of Jesus of Nazareth, his death and resurrection.
Perhaps then, you need to clarify this issue of authenticity from the Gospel of Matthew.
Originally Posted by ebia
This is a waste of time, not only does every Christian understand Jesus to have been crucified, but so does pretty much every secular and jewish historian who studies the period. You're clutching at straws, I'm afraid.
In matters of creed, Muslim scholars require there to be verified eyewitness accounts of Prophetic events or teachings, because there can be no room for speculation in creedal matters.
If secular historians don't require verified eyewitness accounts, then that is their deficiency.
Where are your verified eyewitness accounts of these events mentioned in the Gospels?
Originally Posted by ebia
If there is such a single moment it isn't the death of Jesus but his resurrection.
The resurrection could not take place without first dying.
You say this is the correct rendering, but please provide some references for your claim.
Whose rendering is this?
The word ما in Arabic is a negating particle and appears several times in that verse, but your translation appears to omit that negating particle in every instance.
4.157 Andtheir saying: "Truly we killedThe Messiah, Jesus,Mary's son,“allah's”messenger”,and that they killed him,and that they crucified him, and certainly theyalike, and truly whomthey differedin Him,certainly they (are) not indoubt from Him,on account of Him, from knowledge, exceptto followthebelief, and that theysurelykilled him.
To overcome the Muslim mindset, we need to first define the Arabic word that has been misinterpreted by Islam.
Here is the classic Arabic definition for "ma"...
ما= “ma”
“ma” definition:
Conjunctive pronoun. That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such a manner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.
References: An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3016 A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300 The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 523 - 524 A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 135 - 136
As we can see below..."ma", when joined to "wa", is simply a filler-word in this ayah...
4.157 And their saying: "Certainly we killed The Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, “allah's” messenger”, and that they killed him, and that they crucified him, and certainly they alike, and certainly whom they followed in Him, certainly they (are) not in doubt from Him, on account of Him, from knowledge, except to follow the belief, and that they surely killed him.
Couple this, to the very next ayah, as thus…
بل رفعه الله إليه وكان الله عزيزا حكيما
Bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman
4.158 But “allah”, he raised Him to him, and “allah” mighty, wise.
4.157 & 4.158 tell us of its most likely Biblical source...
This One given to you by the before-determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you having taken by lawless hands, having crucified Him, you killed Him.But God raised Him up, loosing the throes of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. (Act 2.23 - 24)
As we can see, 4.157 & 4.158 are simply parroting NT material...
Thus, context is clear that in 4.157 “wama” is simply governing the verb in the conditional mood – which is positive….NOT negative.
Further, rendering this Islamic one-hit-wonder ayah as a negative would force other Koranic ayahs into contradiction.
As further evidence that 4.157 confirms Jesus’ death upon the cross, all the Koranic crucifixion instances are shown here, which confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…
• 5.33…they will be crucified till death • 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death • 12.41…so will be crucified till death • 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death • 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death
Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.
Thus, there is no reason at all to believe that 4.157 would break this trend…
It is it me or is does this Just James fellow sound like he's trying to convert us? I'm all ears for people from different religions or denominations wanting to convert me, however, he's going to have to try a lot harder...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
“then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:10,12
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
In matters of creed, Muslim scholars require there to be verified eyewitness accounts of Prophetic events or teachings, because there can be no room for speculation in creedal matters.
If secular historians don't require verified eyewitness accounts, then that is their deficiency.
Now…
There seems to be some hypocrisy going on here, brother. You showed absolutely no denial whatsoever that Islam bases an entire creed regarding Jesus’ crucifixion around a single solitary ayah, and in this single solitary ayah you immediately knew which pivotal single word makes or breaks the entire verse!
Christians don’t base their understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion upon a single word in a single verse.
Further, none of the authors of the Koran were eyewitnesses to the Biblical material which they copied.
In fact, no one claims ownership of any of the 114 chapters comprising the Koranic opus.
Thus…you are simply parroting Islamic ignorance which fails to withstand the test that it applies to others.
Perhaps then, you need to clarify this issue of authenticity from the Gospel of Matthew.
In matters of creed, Muslim scholars require there to be verified eyewitness accounts of Prophetic events or teachings, because there can be no room for speculation in creedal matters.
If secular historians don't require verified eyewitness accounts, then that is their deficiency.
Where are your verified eyewitness accounts of these events mentioned in the Gospels?
I see no reason to play the game on your terms. I see no reason to force Matthew or any other part of scripture into the sort of thing you would like it to be, not any reason to doubt the crucifixion when just about every worthwhile historian accepts it purely on the basis of a some unconvincing Islamic speculation. If you want to take a simplistic attititude to historical research when it suits you that's your issue.
The resurrection could not take place without first dying.[/quote]
Absolutely, so if we know the resurrection took place, we know the crucifixion took place. Not that there was any doubt.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
4.157 Andtheir saying: "Truly we killedThe Messiah, Jesus,Mary's son,“allah's”messenger”,and that they killed him,and that they crucified him, and certainly theyalike, and truly whomthey differedin Him,certainly they (are) not indoubt from Him,on account of Him, from knowledge, exceptto followthebelief, and that theysurelykilled him.
AppliePie7,
I am shocked by the audacity of your mistranslation.
Your mistranslation barely makes any sense in English.
By responding, I am afraid I will appear to give your mistranslation some credibility.
The very definitions you gave provide evidence against your interpretation. Have you studied formal Arabic grammar?
And you have not answered my original question to you - whose rendering is this?
Whose translation is this?
I would like to see any Arabic scholar who agrees with the rendering you have provided.
In fact, see if you can speak with any 10-year old Arab Christian child who agrees with the meaning that you have understood from the verse.
Peace
Last edited by Just James; 18th November 2009 at 05:27 PM.
Aside from my fear of giving credibility to ApplePie7's mistranslation, I am quite happy to enter into a discussion about Arabic grammar on the topic.
However, such a detailed discussion would go over the heads of most people here, given that it is a foreign language for most, just as a discussion about the grammar of most languages would go over my head.
But, let us look at the translation provided by ApplePie7 and compare it with the commonly-accepted Yusuf Ali translation.
AppliePie7:
4.157 Andtheir saying: "Truly we killedThe Messiah, Jesus,Mary's son,“allah's”messenger”,and that they killed him,and that they crucified him, and certainly theyalike, and truly whomthey differedin Him,certainly they (are) not indoubt from Him,on account of Him, from knowledge, exceptto followthebelief, and that theysurelykilled him.
Yusuf Ali:
4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God" ;- 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 :-
Now I ask every sincere Christian to read these two translations – the translation provided by AppliePie7 is precisely the sort of incoherency that you would expect if you were to remove the negating particle ما in all four instances where it appears in the verse.
Peace
Last edited by Just James; 23rd November 2009 at 05:07 PM.
Reason: corrected for missing quotation mark in the Yusuf Ali translation and for details see: christianforums.com/t7419318-2
Linear Mode
