Nancy
Well-Known Member
Good word Johann although, I had to remove part of the first statement as we cannot discuss it at this time..Peace, and be blessed!
Was Jesus crucified?
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
If you want to hear some sound apologetics-listen to this.
Subscribe-and can give you more links-if you are interested dear sister.
Most here are swimming on the surface of the water-not willing to "dive deep"-also the preexistence and Deity of Jesus should be the number one topic to be discussed-too many jokers on this Forum.
I have yet to see a Christian apologist "win" a debate against a rabbi and a Imam-speaking from experience-and I have all the information and the rebuttals.
Are we not to evangelize to Muslims and the rabbis? And with them you have to think on your feet and KNOW the Scriptures!
Shalom to you and family.
Johann.
Which part @Nancy? I believe the fundamental topic on the preexistence of our Lord and His Deity should be the primary discussion-I have asked @rockytopva to give me grace to continue on this topic-many, many here believe Jesus was a "created being" and how can the Creator be a created Being?.
We can leave the "Trinitas" aside and yet the ancient rabbinical rabbis believed in 'Two Powers" others-7 powers and I have all the information to SHARE for the edification to others.
Threads should not be locked on this fundamental topics dear sister-but should be encouraged!
Shalom
Johann.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
Can't watch all of the video Johann, it is 2 hours but, I got the gist of it. Thanks for sharing.
Hmm, maybe I should move this to the "Apologetics" forum?
In my theology (Jewish monotheism) the creator isn’t a created being; the creator is an uncreated being. He created the heavens and the earth alone, by himself.
When Jesus was crucified and rose from the grave. Islam did not exist .....Try history instead of disputing reality. Mohammed stolde elements of Christianity trying to make make his religion of war and conquest more palatable ........
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
Although many may misunderstand what the words mean, the Bible does state that Jesus was hung on a stauros and did in fact die. Other books and their statements may or may not be true.
This is actually a study to any Muslims that might be on this Forum-thanks brother.
Johann.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Was Jesus crucified?
hmmmm, well I don't think he was filled with ice cream and tied to a sandhill in the Negev on a hot day!
There are threads galore on the Deity of Jesus.Here's the problem> It is a rule that this topic is not to be discussed.
It would be very unfair to allow you to do this, and others not.
What you need to do is appeal to all of the the Admins, and do so privately, because to continue publicly while breaking the rule and trying to justify it is unfair, when others are not allowed to.
This is the rule and why:
The complaint of the Admins and mods is that this results in heated arguments and this is why this rule is placed.
OTOH, rules can be changed--it is just not a good idea trying to argue for exception or acceptance while in a thread.
You could perhaps come up with some sort of ideas or bullet points to try to convince the PTB that it is good to continue this topic.'But you should certainly do so behind the scenes, and try that way. If not, you'll keep getting cut off, and I am sure you want a reasonable result instead of being contrary.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
You have been missed my friend . Where are you .
Nancy
Well-Known Member
Well, the part was about the divinity of Christ which the Admins. banned temporarily. It goes along with the ban on the Trinity. I'm sure they will soon once again be allowed but, I am but a lowly mod, lol...I do not have that kind of power.
Be blessed my brother!
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,808
- 641
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
The reason the subject was banned was due to so many Christians being unable to withstand the sound teaching of Unitarians in the forum. In all the debates between 3n1 and Unitarians, I've not once witnessed a win for the 3n1's. So, it's better to close the subject down than having people constantly frustrated in the forum. It was a wise decision even though I was partied to the discussions. Since then, there has been relative peace. It's like how evolution is being treated in reformist church's, the subject is off limits even though many people today believe it’s the most plausible way God created and sustained life on this planet.
Good to see you back!
F2F
This is the relevant Sūrah:
‘And so, for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed”
– Nay! 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 (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158; my emphases).
There are tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) by Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î;
and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) claim that Yeshua was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him – and to take his place. The text provides no justification for this claim.
Muhammad Asad writes:
‘There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’ān or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.
‘The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lākin shubbiha lahum – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). (‘The Message of the Qur'an).
I opine that these ʾāyāt are a direct rejection of narratives found in the ‘Talmud Bavli’ (‘Babylonian Talmud’), rather than those of the Gospels (whose narratives are rejected by default).
Here’s why:
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not identify those Jews who ‘uttered a terrible slander against Mary’; nor the period in which they lived. However, there are clues to their identity in the writings of Origen, and in the Talmud.
Celsus, a polemic writer against Christians, produced his ‘Logos Alēthēs’ (‘The True Word’) between the years 175 and 180 CE. Around 240 CE, a copy was given to Origen of Alexandria, one of the most influential scholars in the early Church.
The original text of ‘Logos Alēthēs’ has been lost, but scholars have been able to reconstruct much of it, thanks to Origen’s many citations.
Origen writes (my emphases):
‘He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character (a Jew) who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher’s grey hairs…. After this he represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because he (Jesus) fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He (Celsus) says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery.’ (‘Contra Celsus – Book 1; Chapter 28’; my emphasis).
In Chapter 32 of his work, Origen writes:
‘Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, "as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera”’; my emphasis.
Henry Chadwick, in his translation of the ‘Contra Celsus, writes:
‘The title Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud……. Eusebius, commenting on Hos. v. 14 (‘Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall!’) says: ‘The text may be quoted against those of the circumcision who slanderously and abusively assert that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of Panthera Epiphanius’
When preparing his book ‘Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schäfer – a noted scholar in the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and one-time Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University – drew on fourteen Talmud manuscripts (both censored and uncensored); along with two printed versions; the Soncino (1484-1519) and the Vilna (1880-1886).
For our purposes, the uncensored tracts are of particular relevance. The oldest used by Schäfer are the Firenze II-I-7-9; an Ashkenazi manuscript of 1177 CE; and the Herzog 1; a Yemeni manuscript of c1565 CE.
Schäfer writes:
‘The (Babylonian) Talmud seems to be convinced that (Yeshua’s) true father was Pandera, his mother’s lover, and that he was a b*****d in the full sense of the word.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).
Could this be the 'terrible slander against Mary' that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) refers to? I know of no other.
Referring to the tractate ‘Sanhedrin 43’, Schäfer continues:
‘With the sixth chapter (“Jesus’ Execution”) we return to the fate of Jesus himself. Here, a quite elaborate story – again only in the Babylonian Talmud – details the halakhic procedure of Jesus’ trial and execution: Jesus was not crucified but, according to Jewish law, stoned to death and then, as the ultimate post-mortem punishment reserved for the worst criminals, hanged on a tree. This took place on the eve of Passover, which happened to be Sabbath eve (Friday). The reason for his execution was because he was convicted of sorcery and of enticing Israel into idolatry.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’; my emphasis).
Continued:
‘And so, for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed”
– Nay! 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 (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158; my emphases).
There are tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) by Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î;
and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) claim that Yeshua was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him – and to take his place. The text provides no justification for this claim.
Muhammad Asad writes:
‘There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’ān or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.
‘The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lākin shubbiha lahum – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). (‘The Message of the Qur'an).
I opine that these ʾāyāt are a direct rejection of narratives found in the ‘Talmud Bavli’ (‘Babylonian Talmud’), rather than those of the Gospels (whose narratives are rejected by default).
Here’s why:
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not identify those Jews who ‘uttered a terrible slander against Mary’; nor the period in which they lived. However, there are clues to their identity in the writings of Origen, and in the Talmud.
Celsus, a polemic writer against Christians, produced his ‘Logos Alēthēs’ (‘The True Word’) between the years 175 and 180 CE. Around 240 CE, a copy was given to Origen of Alexandria, one of the most influential scholars in the early Church.
The original text of ‘Logos Alēthēs’ has been lost, but scholars have been able to reconstruct much of it, thanks to Origen’s many citations.
Origen writes (my emphases):
‘He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character (a Jew) who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher’s grey hairs…. After this he represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because he (Jesus) fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He (Celsus) says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery.’ (‘Contra Celsus – Book 1; Chapter 28’; my emphasis).
In Chapter 32 of his work, Origen writes:
‘Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, "as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera”’; my emphasis.
Henry Chadwick, in his translation of the ‘Contra Celsus, writes:
‘The title Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud……. Eusebius, commenting on Hos. v. 14 (‘Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall!’) says: ‘The text may be quoted against those of the circumcision who slanderously and abusively assert that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of Panthera Epiphanius’
When preparing his book ‘Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schäfer – a noted scholar in the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and one-time Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University – drew on fourteen Talmud manuscripts (both censored and uncensored); along with two printed versions; the Soncino (1484-1519) and the Vilna (1880-1886).
For our purposes, the uncensored tracts are of particular relevance. The oldest used by Schäfer are the Firenze II-I-7-9; an Ashkenazi manuscript of 1177 CE; and the Herzog 1; a Yemeni manuscript of c1565 CE.
Schäfer writes:
‘The (Babylonian) Talmud seems to be convinced that (Yeshua’s) true father was Pandera, his mother’s lover, and that he was a b*****d in the full sense of the word.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).
Could this be the 'terrible slander against Mary' that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) refers to? I know of no other.
Referring to the tractate ‘Sanhedrin 43’, Schäfer continues:
‘With the sixth chapter (“Jesus’ Execution”) we return to the fate of Jesus himself. Here, a quite elaborate story – again only in the Babylonian Talmud – details the halakhic procedure of Jesus’ trial and execution: Jesus was not crucified but, according to Jewish law, stoned to death and then, as the ultimate post-mortem punishment reserved for the worst criminals, hanged on a tree. This took place on the eve of Passover, which happened to be Sabbath eve (Friday). The reason for his execution was because he was convicted of sorcery and of enticing Israel into idolatry.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’; my emphasis).
Continued:
Dr. David Instone-Brewer, of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, writes:
‘The Talmud is an edited and severely abbreviated record of discussions by rabbis over a period of 300 years, starting in about AD 200 when the document they were discussing was edited.
‘The traditions about the trials of Jesus and his disciples which were censored from b. San.43a were brought into the Talmudic discussions early in the Third Century and removed in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
‘External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core in this tradition was: ‘On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel (to idolatry).’ (‘Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud’).
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was neither killed nor crucified (my emphasis):
‘They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’
There was no deception of the part of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – no ‘substitution’. The Bavli narrative is a lie; one that gained the appearance of truth through a process of repetition over time.
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was not executed. The language of the Text reveals, beyond doubt, that he did not die:
‘Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself.’
The word ‘raise’ renders ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) rather than ‘ba‘atha’, which is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to mean ‘to resurrect’ after death.
Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes:
‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana’).
Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (‘Tafsir of the Qur'an’).
Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (‘Majmu' Fatawa’).
Zahid al-Kawthari affirms that the ascension of Yeshua is beyond doubt:
‘That is because the basic meaning of the word rafa'a in the verses is transportation from below to above. There is no element here that could be used to interpret the verses metaphorically. Therefore, there is no evidence for seeking to produce a meaning in the sense of ascension in honour and station.’ (Nazra 'Abira fi Maza'im’).
The argument that Yeshua was not killed is strengthen by the use of the word ‘bal’ in ʾāyah 158.
‘…they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’),
By way of explanation, Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri writes that if the term ‘bal’:
‘Comes after a sentence expressing a negativity, then, according to the rules of Arabic linguistics, the sentence following it must mean the exact opposite of the one preceding it. The opposite of death is life. This is a requirement of the rules of linguistics.’ (‘Position of Reason’).
Referring to this same verse, Said Ramadan al-Buti writes:
‘The mutual compatibility between the verses’ previous and later sections necessarily reveals a fact. (…) The term bal expresses a contradiction between the preceding and the following words. In other words, bal cancels out a previous statement. (‘Islamic Catechism’: page 338).
‘The Talmud is an edited and severely abbreviated record of discussions by rabbis over a period of 300 years, starting in about AD 200 when the document they were discussing was edited.
‘The traditions about the trials of Jesus and his disciples which were censored from b. San.43a were brought into the Talmudic discussions early in the Third Century and removed in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
‘External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core in this tradition was: ‘On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel (to idolatry).’ (‘Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud’).
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was neither killed nor crucified (my emphasis):
‘They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’
There was no deception of the part of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – no ‘substitution’. The Bavli narrative is a lie; one that gained the appearance of truth through a process of repetition over time.
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was not executed. The language of the Text reveals, beyond doubt, that he did not die:
‘Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself.’
The word ‘raise’ renders ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) rather than ‘ba‘atha’, which is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to mean ‘to resurrect’ after death.
Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes:
‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana’).
Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (‘Tafsir of the Qur'an’).
Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (‘Majmu' Fatawa’).
Zahid al-Kawthari affirms that the ascension of Yeshua is beyond doubt:
‘That is because the basic meaning of the word rafa'a in the verses is transportation from below to above. There is no element here that could be used to interpret the verses metaphorically. Therefore, there is no evidence for seeking to produce a meaning in the sense of ascension in honour and station.’ (Nazra 'Abira fi Maza'im’).
The argument that Yeshua was not killed is strengthen by the use of the word ‘bal’ in ʾāyah 158.
‘…they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’),
By way of explanation, Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri writes that if the term ‘bal’:
‘Comes after a sentence expressing a negativity, then, according to the rules of Arabic linguistics, the sentence following it must mean the exact opposite of the one preceding it. The opposite of death is life. This is a requirement of the rules of linguistics.’ (‘Position of Reason’).
Referring to this same verse, Said Ramadan al-Buti writes:
‘The mutual compatibility between the verses’ previous and later sections necessarily reveals a fact. (…) The term bal expresses a contradiction between the preceding and the following words. In other words, bal cancels out a previous statement. (‘Islamic Catechism’: page 338).
Last edited:
A win for the Unitarians? Open the thread and let's discuss-I have irrefutable biblical data against Unitarians.
Johann.
You‘re aware, I presume, that the God of a unitarian is only one person.
Jesus’ God is only one person, the Father.
While it can’t be discussed due to current Board policy, Jesus himself is, by definition, a unitarian.
I would bet the farm that you don’t have irrefutable biblical proof against him. It’s a shame that Board policy doesn’t allow you to try.
- Status
Similar threads
