Question about Islamic Belief

[Birchum]

Is it true that Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified on the cross but someone else was crucified in his place? If so, I'm curious about this belief because I think the one point that most historians agree on (even secular historians) with regard to factual historical data on the life of Jesus is that he was crucified.

 

[Link_Blue]

history is based upon either people's reports of what happened and artifacts, which are primary sources, or secondary sources which are taken from older historians

history differs historian to historian, and u can never be sure of anything with it, if it was not like that, there would not be much historians cause there be no point, and u wouldn't have to go through university to be a historian

 

[mujahid263]

I beleive someone was crucified in Jesus' place.

And I'm sure with regard to logic and science a scientist would agree with me that the man who met so many people after being crucified had never been crucified.

Please read this nice lil book by respected scholar Sheikh Ahmad Deedat, its called Crucifixtion or cruci-fiction. As soons I get 15 post count, I'll post it inshaAllah. Unless someone beats me to it of course.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Is it true that Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified on the cross but someone else was crucified in his place? If so, I'm curious about this belief because I think the one point that most historians agree on (even secular historians) with regard to factual historical data on the life of Jesus is that he was crucified.

Greetings Birchum,
I was just wondering what historians and historical data you are refering to? Thanks in advance.

Blessings,
Monica

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by mujahid263

I beleive someone was crucified in Jesus' place.

Did you conclude this on your own by reading the Biblical account yourself or did you rely upon other people to decide for you (accepting other's material as proof)?

And I'm sure with regard to logic and science a scientist would agree with me that the man who met so many people after being crucified had never been crucified.

The premise is that Jesus is God. It would not matter what a scientist or anyone else says. It surely would not depend upon the limited logic of man either. If Jesus can be born of a virgin birth through the creative powers of God, surely He can overcome human limitations such as death and crucifixion? But wait! God can do anything that He wants except that, right? Once you begin to limit God to time and space, you have put Him in a box and will never be able to see Him in His full glory.

How many hours have you spent reading the nonIslamic accounts and thoroughly critiquing the Islamic accounts just as heavily before reaching a conclusion? Research requires more than just taking a stance. At some point, you have to take a look at the contradicting view and give it just as much chance of being proven correct as your personal stance.

Please read this nice lil book by respected scholar Sheikh Ahmad Deedat, its called Crucifixtion or cruci-fiction. As soons I get 15 post count, I'll post it inshaAllah. Unless someone beats me to it of course.

That is a bad book to read. It is just another of the Islamic apologetics trying to bring about credibility to Islam. The Book is full of glaring holes and is not based upon a sound analysis of the Bible and historical accounts surrounding the crucifixion. I am not saying not to read it, but to understand that it is poorly researched.

 

[mujahid263]

I am not saying not to read it, but to understand that it is poorly researched.

lolz, have you ever read even read it? I have yet to see a detailed Christian response to it. Whereas the Christian propaganda about Islam "Prophet of Doom" has been refuted by many different people.

How many hours have you spent reading the nonIslamic accounts and thoroughly critiquing the Islamic accounts just as heavily before reaching a conclusion?

A lot. I'm currently studying Biblical prophecies and the Apocrphya.

God can do anything that He wants except that, right?

Never said that. But just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it HAS been done. As for Jesus', he was human according to me, so to me what naturally happens to humans would naturally happen to him as well.

Did you conclude this on your own by reading the Biblical account yourself or did you rely upon other people to decide for you (accepting other's material as proof)?

Did you see Jesus' performing those miracles yourself, did you see him allegedly claim to be God himself?


EDIT:

Cruci-fiction or Crucifixtion by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat

 

[Islam_mulia]

Is it true that Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified on the cross but someone else was crucified in his place? If so, I'm curious about this belief because I think the one point that most historians agree on (even secular historians) with regard to factual historical data on the life of Jesus is that he was crucified.

As far as I have known, there is no credible historical account of Jesus crucifixion. Many 'modern' scholars in fact deny the existence of Jesus. Tell me how I can be wrong here.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

The account of Flavius Josephus born in 37 AD:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."--Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

He also said that the High Priest Ananias had:
"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."--Antiquities, Book 20, 200.

Josephus, while not an eyewitness to the events of the crucifixion, did live during the time that the eyewitnesses were alive. Many of the eyewitness accounts are recorded in the New Testament and Church Tradition because those people became Christians due to the persuasiveness of what they saw and heard.

Flavius Josephus is a historian whose work is drawn upon for information about the Roman Empire, the Jewish people and the early Church, by secular and not secular scholars. Josephus would have had access to eyewitness accounts and as a Jew, he would have no partiality toward the Christian message.

I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just sharing information. My faith does not stand or fall on this issue:

'Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”' --John 20:29

Blessings!
Monica

 

[mujahid263]

According to Islam, another person was crucified in Jesus' place. If this is the case then the person must've looked like Jesus at that time, also what Quran agrees with. So if I saw a man identical to Jesus being crucified in front of me, I would obviously think it is Jesus.

Also, there is many historians who disagree with the stories attributed to Jesus, and I recall after the Passion of Christ came that a Jewish Rabbi near the are where I was at the time made a certain theory. He claimed Jesus wasn't crucified, instead he was thrown down stairs (or some other form of murder). He even explained how it matched with historical evidence of tradition.

If Jesus wasn't crucified on that day and it was someone else, "eloi eloi lama sabatchamti"* and the fact that Jesus later appeared would make sense. BTW, for those who don't know, "Eloi Eloi lama Sabatchamti"* was what the man on the cross was said to have uttered. It means "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

*I'm recalling this Arhamaic from memory so I'm not sure its correct

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."--Antiquities, Book 20, 200.

This would lead me to beleive Jesus was stoned not crucified?

 

[peaceful soul]

As far as I have known, there is no credible historical account of Jesus crucifixion. Many 'modern' scholars in fact deny the existence of Jesus. Tell me how I can be wrong here.

You definitely need to look in more places than you currently have. There is evidence for the crucifixion.

 

[peaceful soul]

According to Islam, another person was crucified in Jesus' place. If this is the case then the person must've looked like Jesus at that time, also what Quran agrees with. So if I saw a man identical to Jesus being crucified in front of me, I would obviously think it is Jesus.

Also, there is many historians who disagree with the stories attributed to Jesus, and I recall after the Passion of Christ came that a Jewish Rabbi near the are where I was at the time made a certain theory. He claimed Jesus wasn't crucified, instead he was thrown down stairs (or some other form of murder). He even explained how it matched with historical evidence of tradition.

If Jesus wasn't crucified on that day and it was someone else, "eloi eloi lama sabatchamti"* and the fact that Jesus later appeared would make sense. BTW, for those who don't know, "Eloi Eloi lama Sabatchamti"* was what the man on the cross was said to have uttered. It means "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

*I'm recalling this Arhamaic from memory so I'm not sure its correct




This would lead me to beleive Jesus was stoned not crucified?

Are you concluding that the person that yelled out that quote is a person that was put there against his will? That was Christ on the cross. He said that statement in response to His first understanding of human suffering. Christ had only gnosis (knowledge) of suffering. He never had the experience of knowing what suffering was.

Your replacement theory only shows that Allah is the great deceiver. If God would allow humanity to be deceived, then god is less than genuine. He has not integrity and must be seen as a fraud.

Who is this rabbi who make those claims? Did you research his claims or are you just using him to promote you theory?

 

[Islam_mulia]

I have expected Christians to use the Flavius Josephus arguments without understanding that the Antiquities are tainted with Christian interpolations.

The following link provides a good argument what scholars think of the Antiquities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

What then is the 'modern consesus' on the authenticity of the Antiquities:

The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental. Some apologists maintain that only some of the section are interpolations. However a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

To understand what the underlined words mean, pls see

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Essentially, some scholars believe the words in CAP (see the link) are Christian interpolations.

Surely, you cannot use a corrupted text as 'historical documents' for the crucifixion of Jesus?

salam

 

[ischus]

Has everyone read this recent NewsWeek Article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244999/site/newsweek/

 

[peaceful soul]

I have expected Christians to use the Flavius Josephus arguments without understanding that the Antiquities are tainted with Christian interpolations.

The following link provides a good argument what scholars think of the Antiquities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

What then is the 'modern consesus' on the authenticity of the Antiquities:

The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental. Some apologists maintain that only some of the section are interpolations. However a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

To understand what the underlined words mean, pls see

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Essentially, some scholars believe the words in CAP (see the link) are Christian interpolations.

Surely, you cannot use a corrupted text as 'historical documents' for the crucifixion of Jesus?

salam

Josephus had no know bias. He journalized his observations. It is that simple. I may comment further on this subject at a later time.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I'm recalling this Arhamaic from memory so I'm not sure its correct

“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”

This would lead me to beleive Jesus was stoned not crucified?

That second account is about Jesus' brother according to the flesh, James. It offers an non biblical account of his existence and his involvement in the Church.

Blessings,
Monica

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Surely, you cannot use a corrupted text as 'historical documents' for the crucifixion of Jesus?

I feel no need to prove the crucifixion personally but in a debate I will offer information that has generally been agreed upon through the centuries. As I said in my earlier post the first person accounts that historians love are in the New Testament and Church Tradition. I trust these accounts fully.

I am of the opinion that historical accounts and arguments while interesting, do not have a whole lot to do with whether on has faith in the Christian message or not. Again, as a said in my earlier post, my faith does not stand or fall on the point of extra biblical corrboration.

Christians are to love the world as Christ loved the world, to forgive as Christ forgave and sacrifice as Christ sacrificed. Doing that is more important and ultimately more convincing than the perfect argument or "evidence." "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35 I know that I do not do this perfectly (yet!) and many other Christians have failed to love others well, but many, many, many have. Some names we know and countless others are unknown. Their light has shone in the lives of others showing them the face of Christ and His Truth. "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16

Blessings!
Monica

 

[Bevlina]

There is evidence alright. But muslims can't see it because their eyes are blinded.

 

[The Midge]

The problem I have with the Quranic/ islamic view is that is not a conte,porary account and that it has to disprove Christianity in order to have any chance of being credible. For these reasons I am inclined to be very sceptical about anything the Quran or islam have to say about Jesus.

The Biblical account is full of references about family and friends being around the cross and burying Jesus and people putting their hands in Jesus' wounds. This of course folows from a show trail. Jesus was a well known figure of the time. Yet it is suggested that and entire city including hte hostile preisthood did not spot a double? All this would have to be explained away and the substitution theory does not seem to address this.

BTW the above reference refers to James (Jesus' brother being handed over for stoning not Jesus himself).

 

[Islam_mulia]

So, essentially, what Monica meant was that she does not "need to prove the crucifixion personally" but believe it happened through FAITH.

In other words, you cannot use the 'historical documents' to prove the crucifixion, Christians just based their Faith on the Bible narrations. Hence, many people who believed Jesus was crucified only believe in conjecture (just like what the Quran says).

salam

 

[Monica child of God 1]

So, essentially, what Monica meant was that she does not "need to prove the crucifixion personally" but believe it happened through FAITH.

In other words, you cannot use the 'historical documents' to prove the crucifixion, Christians just based their Faith on the Bible narrations. Hence, many people who believed Jesus was crucified only believe in conjecture (just like what the Quran says).

salam

I will clarify what I meant. I personally do not feel compelled to prove the crucifixion via extra biblical/traditional accounts. That is not my vocation, my calling. I am not a historian. Other Christians are called to that work and may God bless them in it. I said that my faith does not stand or fall on this issue.

I did not come to faith in Christ by persuasive arguments, theories or worldly wisdom (though many have). I came to faith by getting just a glimpse of "Christ and the power of his resurrection." (Phil. 3:10) For me, God is not a far off entity but a Father who cares deeply and personally. My soul clings to Him; His right hand upholds me. (Psalm 63:8) Christian faith is experiential not merely theoretical. Christians "taste the heavenly gift...share in the Holy Spirit...taste the goodness of the word of God..." (Heb 6:4-5) It is as real as passing through the Red Sea or eating manna in the wilderness.

Taste and see that the LORD is good! --Psalm 34:8​

Blessings!
Monica