Must Muslims deny the crucifixion of Christ?

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 8, 2019

To summarise:

Jews believe that if Jesus was a historical person (which isn't as sure as most believers would have you, well, believe), he was just one wannabe-messiah among MANY others. He tried to stir up an uprising by attacking the Temple, the Romans put a swift end to that by crucifying him, and the rest is mythmaking and retroactive embellishment.

Muslims commonly believe that Jesus was a prophet (which, in Islam, apparently means something totally different from what Jews and Christians mean by this term, and encompasses even people like King David and others), and that the Deity performed a shell game, having Jesus trade places with somebody else (Joseph of Arimathea?) without anybody noticing before he could be crucified.

Some Hindus have picked up this tale: there is a tomb of Jesus in Srinagar, Kashmir, where he supposedly lived out his remaining years after surviving/escaping crucifixion by the Romans.

Last but not least, the Baha'i go the philosophical route, basically embracing "V for Vendetta's" notion that ideas are bullet proof, and people invested with immense symbolic meaning cannot be killed, because their idea outshines their mortal existence.

My personal stance on the matter is surprisingly close to the scholarly conclusions reached by Reza Aslan in Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. I think the historical Jesus (whose existence I consider likely, with a small chance of him being pure myth/an amalgamation of others) can be glimpsed within the New Testament, even though he's already considerably eclipsed by the deification process, the attempts at retroactively substantiating his claims to messiahdom (such as the birth narratives), and the need to make his mission more palatable to a predominantly Roman audience. (Pilate was not an official known for being particularly squeamish about "pre-emptively" executing potential rebels or upstarts. From what we know about the man from historical sources, he did not make ANY effort to appease the locals, but was even eventually recalled from his post for being too harsh and unrelenting in his dominion, fomenting the spirit of rebellion.)

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 8, 2019

As to the question why and how muslims came up with the notion that Jesus was NOT crucified (while maintaining the virgin-birth-tale, we probably need to look no further than their sources:

The Qur'an contains references to the "infancy gospels", apocryphal myths that were written in the 3rd to 4th century to embellish Jesus's childhood years. Likewise, the region was home to a wide range of Christian heresies that had been driven out or exterminated in other parts of the Mediterranean, and it was these sources that Mohammed could draw upon.

Erik Nelson · Jan 8, 2019

Jane_the_Bane said:
As to the question why and how muslims came up with the notion that Jesus was NOT crucified (while maintaining the virgin-birth-tale, we probably need to look no further than their sources:

The Qur'an contains references to the "infancy gospels", apocryphal myths that were written in the 3rd to 4th century to embellish Jesus's childhood years. Likewise, the region was home to a wide range of Christian heresies that had been driven out or exterminated in other parts of the Mediterranean, and it was these sources that Mohammed could draw upon.

I understand that Muslims are favorable towards the Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly states that Judas was crucified in Jesus' place?

Erik Nelson · Jan 8, 2019

LoAmmi said:
A blast from the past!

I don't believe I ever claimed (all the way back in 2015) that Jesus did that.

what about the Talmud, specifically that

rabbi Tzadok fasted for 40 years, from 30-70, to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem he evidently feared to be coming
rabbi Tzadok fasted until rescued by Jochanan ben Zakkai, who fled Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20) at the same time as (Though not in the same direction as) the Jerusalem Christian community (who fled to neutral Pella instead of Pagan Roman legionary lines
that (Tractate Yoma 39a), "Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple (that is to say from around 30 CE) the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right ...hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost [Menorah] light shine

?

Erik Nelson · Jan 8, 2019

Jane_the_Bane said:
To summarise:

Jews believe that if Jesus was a historical person (which isn't as sure as most believers would have you, well, believe), he was just one wannabe-messiah among MANY others. He tried to stir up an uprising by attacking the Temple, the Romans put a swift end to that by crucifying him, and the rest is mythmaking and retroactive embellishment.

Muslims commonly believe that Jesus was a prophet (which, in Islam, apparently means something totally different from what Jews and Christians mean by this term, and encompasses even people like King David and others), and that the Deity performed a shell game, having Jesus trade places with somebody else (Joseph of Arimathea?) without anybody noticing before he could be crucified.

Some Hindus have picked up this tale: there is a tomb of Jesus in Srinagar, Kashmir, where he supposedly lived out his remaining years after surviving/escaping crucifixion by the Romans.

Last but not least, the Baha'i go the philosophical route, basically embracing "V for Vendetta's" notion that ideas are bullet proof, and people invested with immense symbolic meaning cannot be killed, because their idea outshines their mortal existence.

My personal stance on the matter is surprisingly close to the scholarly conclusions reached by Reza Aslan in Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. I think the historical Jesus (whose existence I consider likely, with a small chance of him being pure myth/an amalgamation of others) can be glimpsed within the New Testament, even though he's already considerably eclipsed by the deification process, the attempts at retroactively substantiating his claims to messiahdom (such as the birth narratives), and the need to make his mission more palatable to a predominantly Roman audience. (Pilate was not an official known for being particularly squeamish about "pre-emptively" executing potential rebels or upstarts. From what we know about the man from historical sources, he did not make ANY effort to appease the locals, but was even eventually recalled from his post for being too harsh and unrelenting in his dominion, fomenting the spirit of rebellion.)

The Jewish. Talmud? Explicitly confirms Jesus is existence. From FORENSIC FAITH by Wallace.

LoAmmi · Jan 8, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
what about the Talmud, specifically that

rabbi Tzadok fasted for 40 years, from 30-70, to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem he evidently feared to be coming

rabbi Tzadok fasted until rescued by Jochanan ben Zakkai, who fled Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20) at the same time as (Though not in the same direction as) the Jerusalem Christian community (who fled to neutral Pella instead of Pagan Roman legionary lines

that (Tractate Yoma 39a), "Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple (that is to say from around 30 CE) the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right ...hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost [Menorah] light shine

?

I'm not sure I follow your point here.

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 8, 2019

Just leaving this here.

Neither the scholarly nor the Jewish community necessarily accept Talmudic references as conclusive proof of a historical Jesus. The passages in question quite clearly document the animosities between Christians and Jews, but not necessarily tell us anything about the actual man (if he existed).

As I said before, I consider it likely that there was a historical Jesus, and that traces of him can be found in the New Testament. But we'll never know for sure.

ByAnyOtherName · Jan 8, 2019

Jane_the_Bane said:
As I said before, I consider it likely that there was a historical Jesus, and that traces of him can be found in the New Testament. But we'll never know for sure.

Here's another historical source of evidence for Christ's existence and, more to the topic of this thread, his crucifixion: Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

Written roughly 80 years after the death of Christ, it portrays a very unflattering picture of Christians, such as you might expect from the propaganda of a State attempting to crush what it deems to be a threat to established power structure and social norms (you see this behavior throughout history, recently with the Babis and Baha'is). But it very clearly mentions "Christus" and suffering "the extreme penalty", more likely than not referring to his execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Radagast · Jan 8, 2019

Jane_the_Bane said:
Neither the scholarly nor the Jewish community necessarily accept Talmudic references as conclusive proof of a historical Jesus.

No scholarly historian doubts that Jesus existed.

But why all this talk of Jews, in a thread about Muslims and Christianity?

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 8, 2019

ByAnyOtherName said:
Here's another historical source of evidence for Christ's existence and, more to the topic of this thread, his crucifixion: Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

Written roughly 80 years after the death of Christ, it portrays a very unflattering picture of Christians, such as you might expect from the propaganda of a State attempting to crush what it deems to be a threat to established power structure and social norms (you see this behavior throughout history, recently with the Babis and Baha'is). But it very clearly mentions "Christus" and suffering "the extreme penalty", more likely than not referring to his execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

And how would that not have been common knowledge for anyone who ever came into contact with Christianity? It's only the most central event of their entire faith, and since dying on the cross was such an ignoble death, a Roman critic would have had little reason not to reference it for derision's sake.

Radagast · Jan 8, 2019

Jane_the_Bane said:
a Roman critic would have had little reason not to reference it for derision's sake.

This is exactly what happened. The Alexamenos graffito is one surviving example.

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 9, 2019

Radagast said:
This is exactly what happened. The Alexamenos graffito is one surviving example.

Yes, but you don't seem to grasp what I was saying here. Before I clarify this particular point, a reminder:

I *do* support the notion of a historical Jesus. Our whole discussion here is basically just nitpicking, but more about that in a moment.

So, back to Tacitus: imagine you are a Roman living around the year 100CE. You are aware of a sect called "Christians" in your city, and - like pretty much anybody else - you know that they believe their deity was executed like a common traitor on a cross before coming back to life. So if you wrote about them and wanted to tell your audience about that, you'd probably include that bit in your description, regardless of its historicity, right? It's like writing about the Mormons and saying: "They were founded by Joseph Smith, who found golden plates and translated them". (Note also that antiquity did not embrace the scholarly standards we are familiar with today. Fact-checking was NOT a priority, getting your message across was.)

Historians - and I - agree that the historicity of Jesus is likely enough to be taken for granted, but that does not completely eliminate the possibility of a total fabrication - it just renders it unlikely enough to be ignored. Also, many important people from history are only testified to by similarly flimsy sources, so the same standard applies.

A final note: "why all this talk of Jews"? Because this thread was resurrected after almost four years by a guy who wanted to discuss Jewish-Christian relations. That's why.

Robban · Jan 9, 2019

So a Priest and a Rabbi got on a train and sat in the same compartment.
They started reading,
so the Priest looks up and says, "It says here you are not to eat pork, have you ever eaten pork?"

The Rabbi replied, "Yes, it has happened, once,"

So after a while the Rabbi looks up and says,
"It says here that you supposed to be celbate,
have you ever......you know?"

A little red faced the Priest replied,
"Well, I must confess, I fell for temptation one or two times."

Then after another little while the Rabbi looks up and asks,

"Better than pork then was it?"

mark kennedy · Jan 9, 2019

The Koran doesn't really deny the crucifiction, only it says Jesus just appeared to be crucified. Whatever the actual doctrine is I think they believe Jesus was some kind of a spirit being. Islam has it's mystical side, this is an expression of it.

Robban · Jan 9, 2019

mark kennedy said:
The Koran doesn't really deny the crucifiction, only it says Jesus just appeared to be crucified. Whatever the actual doctrine is I think they believe Jesus was some kind of a spirit being. Islam has it's mystical side, this is an expression of it.

I cannot see in the story that those who wanted him dead were some sort of enemy,
rather the "enemy" wanted him not to die.

Peter says, "This shall surely not happen to you."

The answer he got was, "Get outa here Satan"

All I get from the story is, he knew he was going to be killed,
so that he could be brought back to life.

Maybe it was to prove a point, that there will be a ressurection.

(Daniel12:2)

ByAnyOtherName · Jan 9, 2019

My understanding is that Jesus was trying to explain to a people, many of whom did not believe in an eternal soul or life after death (as mentioned earlier, many of those people had no idea what a soul was or denied it), that the eternal soul exists.

Let's say someone goes back in time and tries to explain the concept of an eternal soul 2000 years ago:

Them: You're going to die and be gone forever. This is the end.
Future Person: No guys, physical death isn't important. Our essence is eternal. The end of the physical body is meaningless, we don't really die.
Them: So you'll come back? You'll be dead and then you won't be?
Future Person: In the way that truly matters, yes.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
(John 11:25-26)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matthew 10:28)

mark kennedy · Jan 9, 2019

Robban said:
I cannot see in the story that those who wanted him dead were some sort of enemy,
rather the "enemy" wanted him not to die.

Peter says, "This shall surely not happen to you."

The answer he got was, "Get outa here Satan"

All I get from the story is, he knew he was going to be killed,
so that he could be brought back to life.

Maybe it was to prove a point, that there will be a ressurection.

(Daniel12:2)

Just bear in mind we are talking an ancient Middle Eastern, Ancient Near East they call it now, mind set. All I know for sure is the further you go east, the more mystical religions tend to become. Muslims believe in some kind of a resurrection but their view of the crucifixion sounds an awful lot like Docetism. I don't think it's something Islamics dwell on but they believe Jesus was a prophet of some kind.

Niblo · Jan 10, 2019

mark kennedy said:
The Koran doesn't really deny the crucifiction, only it says Jesus just appeared to be crucified. Whatever the actual doctrine is I think they believe Jesus was some kind of a spirit being. Islam has it's mystical side, this is an expression of it.

‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” - No! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little - and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: nay they certainly did not kill him - Allāh raised him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158).

The statement: ‘though it was made to appear like that to them’ is taken by some to mean that another was substituted in Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām)’s place. As you can see, it is not possible to justify, from this statement, any notion of a substitute. It is just as likely – although I have no way of proving this – that the statement is nothing more than a reference to the belief – widespread by the time these verses were revealed – that the crucifixion of Yeshua did, in fact, take place.

Note: The Qur’an is denying two claims: a) that Yeshua was crucified; and b) that he was killed.

Niblo · Jan 10, 2019

Radagast said:
No scholarly historian doubts that Jesus existed.

Read the books of Robert Price; Richard Carrier; and David Fitzgerald for starters.

PS: For the record - I am not in agreement with these people, at least in regard to Yeshua's existence.

Radagast · Jan 10, 2019

Niblo said:
Read the books of Robert Price; Richard Carrier; and David Fitzgerald for starters.

I'm familiar with Price, who is not a historian (although he is an expert on H. P. Lovecraft).

Carrier has a history degree, but is not a scholarly historian (afaik he has never held an academic post).

I know nothing of David Fitzgerald.

Must Muslims deny the crucifixion of Christ?

Gaia's godchild

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Gaia's godchild

Active Member

comes and goes

Gaia's godchild

comes and goes

Gaia's godchild

-----------

Natura non facit saltum

-----------

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Muslim

Muslim

comes and goes

Similar threads