tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post6099509035763914529..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Do Muslims deny the Crucifixion of Jesus?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18417751458755120362012-04-30T19:39:58.114-07:002012-04-30T19:39:58.114-07:00How do you separate whether the Quaran teaches the...<b> How do you separate whether the Quaran teaches the crucifixion vs Islam teaching it? </b><br /><br />The Qu'ran is an element of Islamic teaching a source text. Islam is an entire culture. For example I think huge sections of the bible teach a flat earth cosmology but I wouldn't say that modern Christianity teaches a flat earth cosmology. Holy books for a religion and that religion don't necessarily agree, and in this particular case I think there is a total fork with the Qu'ran teaching Collyridian ideas and modern Islam teaching ascension. <br /><br />Glad you agree on the "corrupt form". I make the strong poing about Collyridianism based on his belief that the trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary) and the Son (Jesus) which was relatively uncommon and Collyridianism was a form that taught it that happened to also be in the middle east. Your clay pigeons is also a good example I hadn't thought of. <br /><br /><b> I also agree that Mohammed was preaching a 'down to earth' material/simple religion, which is one key point I based my article on. Thus it is unlikely he had any sort of 'sophisticated' concepts in mind. </b><br /><br />Exactly, the Qu'ran is a mess theologically. I don't think Mohammed understood the Collyridians which is why the Qu'ran is such a jumble on theology.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17632856457423945332012-04-30T14:05:48.420-07:002012-04-30T14:05:48.420-07:00Maria,
Thank you for your contributions here and...Maria, <br /><br />Thank you for your contributions here and on your site. <br /><br /><br />CDHost, <br /><br />How do you separate whether the Quaran teaches the crucifixion vs Islam teaching it? As I see it, Islam in practice and general teaching denies it, but this is also based on the "exegetical" basis from the Quran denying it. If the Book denies it, we can expect Believers to do so as well. This is also where Jesus being taken to heaven comes from, unless there is an Oral Teaching that says this.<br /><br />I would agree that the Christianity that the Quran has in mind is some corrupt form, given the dubious nature of it's descriptions. For example, the passage talking about 12 year old Jesus turning clay pigeons into real birds is straight out of Gnostic literature. <br /><br />I also agree that Mohammed was preaching a 'down to earth' material/simple religion, which is one key point I based my article on. Thus it is unlikely he had any sort of 'sophisticated' concepts in mind.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-77238963366602083382012-04-28T09:12:33.477-07:002012-04-28T09:12:33.477-07:00Here is my $.02. I'd separate does the Qu'...Here is my $.02. I'd separate does the Qu'ran teach the crucifixion from does Islam teach the crucifixion; I'd also be careful on your conflating crucifixion and death by crucifixion IMHO Islam came out of Collyridian Christianity (<a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/12/collyridian.html" rel="nofollow">post on my blog about Collyridianism</a>) a cousin of Manichaeism and teaches ideas that were common among ancient docetic Christians. And that is what the Qu'ran is talking about. In fact AFAICT when the Qu'ran speaks of Christianity it is speaking of Collyridianism not Catholicism, and that can be confusing in a modern context since Collyridianism didn't survive. <br /><br />And this BTW address the whole New Testament issue. The Qu'ran seems completely unfamiliar with the New Testament. We know that Collyridians, did not use the Catholic canon at all, though they knew of its existence. The only book even commonly used by Catholics that they made use of was the Diatesseron which was common in Syriac Catholic sects but because of its popularity with heretics was being pushed aside a century before Qu'ran was written. <br /><br />Regardless of the history or original intent, mainstream Islam teaches that Jesus was bodily taken into heaven like Enoch and has never died. Whether he was incapable of death, was not on the cross long enough to die, whether Allah substituted someone else ... are matters of dispute but his non death is clearly part of Islam. I agree with your article that the most common approach is this idea of substitution.<br /><br />FWIW I think the docetic approach would make the most sense. We know Tatian was familiar with the 4 gospels. But he would have rejected the idea that demons, who had created matter had any real power. Man consisted of material which didn't differ from that of animals, as well as a lower soul which from God's grace through Jesus was capable of being transformed into a higher soul. The death of Jesus' body would have severed the power demons of creation had over him. That's most likely what the Collyridians asserted and the Mohammed who was preaching a rather material religion couldn't make sense of.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89828100449814974002012-04-27T15:20:58.325-07:002012-04-27T15:20:58.325-07:00Oops! I forgot to make my point. My point being ...Oops! I forgot to make my point. My point being that Muslims have no grounds for denying the Crucifixion since they base this claim upon the purported revelations by the Angel Gibreel to Mohammed. And this evidence is based upon hearsay and <a href="http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/2012/04/case-for-islam.html" rel="nofollow">a copy of a maliciously destroyed original.</a><br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />De MariaDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-73747081347165735172012-04-27T15:13:34.410-07:002012-04-27T15:13:34.410-07:00Nick, you asked:
Do Muslims deny the Crucifixion o...Nick, you asked:<br /><i>Do Muslims deny the Crucifixion of Jesus?<br />Like most Christians living outside the Middle-East and northern Africa, my knowledge of Islam is limited, yet Islam's massive influence on world history from the time it began in the Seventh Century up to today make it a subject worth looking at. The question is: where to start?...</i><br /><br />A long time ago, a Muslim challenged me to provide a forensic defense of the Gospels. He claimed that compared to Islam, the Gospels had no verifiable evidence of even the existence of Jesus. In fact, he, point blank stated that evidence for the truth of the Gospels would be <b>thrown out of court!</b><br /><br />The first thing to remember is:<br /><br />There are two types of evidence which are inadmissible in a court of law. Anyone making a claim which is supported by this type of evidence is regularly thrown out of court. In other words, the court will not even consider their case.<br /><br />These types of evidence are:<br /><br />1. Hearsay - Evidence given by anyone other than by the person giving the testimony.<br /><br />2. Copies of maliciously destroyed originals <br /><br />Hearsay <br /><br /> In Mohamed's case, he says that the Angel said that he should write the Quran and that the Angel told him what to write in the Quran. Therefore, all of Mohamed's case is based on the testimony of the Angel which no one else saw and no one else heard. According to Mohamed, the Angel himself was not speaking for himself but for Allah. <br /><br />If Mohamed were to appear in a court of law today here is what I imagine the interchange would sound like:<br /><br />Mohammed sir, is it true that an angel appeared to you with a message for mankind?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Sir, did anyone else see this angel?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Did anyone else hear the angel?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Can you bring the angel to court that we might hear the testimony for ourselves?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Mr. Mohammed, do you expect us to believe such an extraordinary claim without any evidence? Let me try a different tact. In the Bible, Moses was given a staff with which he could produce many miracles in order to prove the Divine source of his message to Pharoah. Mr. Mohammed, do YOU have any such miraculous signs which prove that an angel gave you a message?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Mr. Mohammed, there is not enough evidence here to warrant a case. Goodbye sir.<br /><br />And that is how the case would end.... <a href="http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/2012/04/case-for-islam.html" rel="nofollow">Read more.</a><br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />De MariaDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-72155756052755617652012-01-30T07:16:45.832-08:002012-01-30T07:16:45.832-08:00Few things are "beyond" denial in an abs...Few things are "beyond" denial in an absolute sense, but there also comes a point where something is either plausible or not. Like I said, remove references to the crucifixion in early Church Fathers, and you're left a few pages of disorganized thoughts. <br /><br />As Jae points out, even one of the most important non-Christian historians of the 1st century, Josephus, saw the crucifixion as a historical event.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-86701130632325486762012-01-30T01:41:14.592-08:002012-01-30T01:41:14.592-08:00It's a shaky claim, to say that the historicit...It's a shaky claim, to say that the historicity of the Crucifixion is BEYOND denial.Alennenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-29807583360963456902012-01-24T22:11:14.132-08:002012-01-24T22:11:14.132-08:00Josephus: Antiquities 20,Chapter 5:
"The son...Josephus: Antiquities 20,Chapter 5:<br /><br />"The sons of Judas the Galilean, who had led a revolt in 6 C.E. over the Roman taxation census, were crucified by the Roman procurator Tiberius Alexander (46-48 C.E.), who was the nephew of the philosopher Philo.<br /> <br />2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior. "<br /><br />Jewish War 4: Chapter 5<br /><br />Josephus reports on the Jewish custom of taking down the bodies of those crucified by the Romans during the Great Revolt and burying them, if permitted, before sundown. This was in response to the Torah Mitzvah found in Deuteronomy 21:22-23: "When someone is convictged of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and yo9u hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse." <br /><br />2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city." <br /><br />Anyone can google and verify the authenticity and historicity of Josephus' writings lending support to the New testament acount of the Life and Crucifixion of a man named Jesus that is called the Christ.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67620148523317360922012-01-24T22:08:35.190-08:002012-01-24T22:08:35.190-08:00Oh by the way Nick , muslim might ignore the entir...Oh by the way Nick , muslim might ignore the entire NT as being a bias reference to their cause that is denial of crucifixion of Jesus Christ for the mere fact it was written by Jesus' followers.<br /><br />However, adding to the early christians' testimony and the SOLID HISTORICAL FACT of a secular jewish historian named, Josephus (37 A.D.) his writings in reference to the Cruxifixion of Jesus.<br /><br />Josephus mentions the crucifixion of Jesus in passing.Christian additions (marked here in brackets and italics) are removed, Quoting Josephus: Antiquities 18,Chapter 3:<br /><br /><br />"Now there was about this time JESUS, A WISE MAN, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for HE was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned HIM TO THE CROSS, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from HIM, are not extinct at this day. "<br /><br />In the very next paragraph Josephus recounts the crucifixion in Rome of the priests of Isis, ordered by the Emperor Tiberius himself, for their misdeeds in arranging the sexual seduction of a virtuous women. <br /><br />4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome . . . When he had said this, he went his way. But now she began to come to the sense of the grossness of what she had done, and rent her garments, and told her husband of the horrid nature of this wicked contrivance, and prayed him not to neglect to assist her in this case. So he discovered the fact to the emperor; whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to the woman. He also demolished the temple of Isis, and gave order that her statue should be thrown into the river Tiber; while he only banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would." <br /><br />Continued.Jaenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-82688387528273728202012-01-24T21:38:26.000-08:002012-01-24T21:38:26.000-08:00I read some verses from Koran about the Eschatolog...I read some verses from Koran about the Eschatological scenario and a muslim friend of mine also affirmed this, that on the Last Day (General Judgment-End of the World) where both the dead and the living from all Nations and time will rise, converge and stand the terrible judgment of God. Accordingly, the One who will come on that Day and judge all humanity is none other than Jesus himself not their prophet Muhammad!<br /><br /><br />I asked him, how can a mere mortal-Jesus (lower than Muhammad their prophet) have such power, dominion and authority to judge ALL Nations at the end of the world? Further, the job description only fits a Being that is Almighty!<br /><br />My muslim friend just can't answer and he too left the converstion scratching his head.Jaenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-42244173875370396442012-01-19T10:13:06.666-08:002012-01-19T10:13:06.666-08:00Hi David,
I have updated my post regarding your ...Hi David, <br /><br />I have updated my post regarding your status. <br /><br />As for the subject at hand, I do agree that it is very important for people to look at all the evidence. I am a strong advocate of that method myself. In fact, I was on the fence as I was reading your links, and it was one of your links that actually made the best case. <br /><br />As I said in my post, one of the main issues I took with the alternate interpretations is that they failed to consider the context.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-85538669845391485332012-01-18T14:16:18.798-08:002012-01-18T14:16:18.798-08:00Hi Nick,
I would like to thank you for bringing t...Hi Nick,<br /><br />I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention this new thread. I think you have done a pretty good job in your summary, even though a number of my own assessments on this issue differ from yours. (Hope that your readers will take the time to look into the resources I provided in the thread you graciously linked to.)<br /><br />With that said, I do take exception with somethinig you penned, specifically, that I am, "a fallen away Catholic (and sad to say now agnostic) named David".<br /><br />Though I no longer attend mass, I have not officially requested that my name be removed from the Church rolls. And further, I AM NOT AN AGNOSTIC. I retain my belief in the God the Bible, and in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, who is "God from God". <br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26382615095006124342012-01-17T09:48:22.206-08:002012-01-17T09:48:22.206-08:00Hi Steve,
I agree that denying Jesus is God is t...Hi Steve, <br /><br />I agree that denying Jesus is God is the most serious heresy and even a key mark of the antichrist. But I think it's easier and more straightforward to prove the Crucifixion than the Deity of Christ because the Crucifixion is so strongly a part of the historical record. <br /><br />That's why I think Muslims will be caught off guard to realize that for them to deny the Crucifixion isn't like denying some other aspect of Christian teaching but rather denying the heart of Christian teaching, making Christianity a nonsense religion.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-79447139710229844642012-01-13T06:40:46.703-08:002012-01-13T06:40:46.703-08:00The Muslims, along with the Jews, also deny he is ...The Muslims, along with the Jews, also deny he is God in the flesh. This goes along with denying the crucifixion. Christ was crucified for the sins of the world, but his death would make no sense at all unless he was wholy rightous. Only God can be wholy rightous, so Christ had to be God in the flesh. The scriptures declare that to deny Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is anti-Christ. It is no coincidence that the two religions that have the most hatred toward Christianity are Islam and Judaism, both which have institutionalized the denial of Christ's incarnation in their creeds.Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.com