No corruption doesn't mean what u r saying ..I am from Pakistan and what u said about Pakistani and Palestinian leader saying Kill the infidels, its horribly wrong ..
The Qur'an says Jesus was never crucified. This is all you need to know to debunk this false religion.
The vast majority of scholars, secular, Christian, and Jewish, agree that Jesus' crucifixion is historically accurate and that it actually happened. Muhammad is the first historical figure to say that it didn't.
They believe a stand in took the place of Jesus just before he died. The is quite outside the realm of secular scholars. And is a difference of faith between Muslims and the others. you are simply concluding here that Islam is false because it isn't your religion. If you assume that Islam is true (instead of our religion) you will see how their belief in Jesus not being crucified does not disprove it and believing that Jesus did die is "anti-Christ."
"They believe a stand in took the place of Jesus just before he died."
This is not in the Qu'ran. It says nothing about Judas or anyone else standing in Jesus' place. This is a tale that muslims have to concoct in order to reconcile the unscholarly imaginary belief that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified.
"you are simply concluding here that Islam is false because it isn't your religion."
No, I am not. You are simply placing these words in my mouth. I know Islam is false because it denies a historical event that is agreed upon my the vast majority of all scholars, not just Christian scholars. The only scholars who deny the crucifixion are muslims. Go figure.
Islam denies the very crux of the christian faith, the crucifixion (and Resurrection) of Jesus. Jesus warned us about this false prophet.
"If you assume that Islam is true you will see how their belief in Jesus not being crucified does not disprove it"
No. There is no assuming anything. Islam cannot define itself outside the negation of the Christian faith and HISTORICITY. It's that simple. You would do well to do a little more studying yourself rather than place words in other people's mouth. If you did a bit of studying, you'd know that there is nowhere in the Qu'ran (or hadiths) that say someone stood in Jesus' place.
I'm sure epaminados, even with all his doubts, would agree that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, and not a substitute. He knows as well as I & most scholars that denying the crucifixion would be denying one of the most superbly attested facts in ancient history, if not THE most superbly attested fact in ancient history. The reasons scholars accept the crucifixion & 75% of them accept the empty tomb is because of the overwhelming amount of this thing we call EVIDENCE. It happened. Plain & simple.
i would agree with the sentiment that Jesus was a historical figure who ended up being crucified by teh romans - tacitus being the most reliable secular reference on point (even though it only states what christians believe about their messiah). still, this does not automatically falsify the muslims claim that there could have been a 'subsitution" but it would put the burden of proof on them to show that this was the case - curiously, this view is the same as the one held by the gnostics
"still, this does not automatically falsify the muslims claim that there could have been a 'subsitution' but it would put the burden of proof on them to show that this was the case"
Of course it does. You don't think the eyewitnesses knew what Jesus looked like?
You don't think scholars have already debunked the theory that it may not have been Jesus on the cross? This is less credible than the evil twin theory.
there's a theory among certain scholars who regard islam as nothing more but a corruption of gnosticism intermingled with some christian beliefs and certain arabic pagan influences - this view is not majoritarian among scholars and is often downplayed because it is quite controversial but it does exist
"there's a theory among certain scholars who regard islam as nothing more but a corruption of gnosticism intermingled with some christian beliefs and certain arabic pagan influences"
There is evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that certain passages were stolen from gnostic texts. Such as the story Muhammad mentioned about Jesus turning a clay bird into a live bird. This was mentioned ONLY in the gnostic gospel of Thomas, which it was stolen from.
you're referring to the infancy gospel of thomas (wholly different from the gnostic gospel of thomas) - these infancy stories were prevalent in teh area but none of them even touched apocryphal status because they were not established as reliable traditions but they were considered gnostic - at least not from what i know.
"however my main concern with the passage relates to policy decisions and to what extent their holy book gives them leeway to enforce their wishes on various matters."
Well my main concern is to show that since such a large part of their religion is false & stolen from gnostic texts, then they don't need to follow the extent of what their holy book gives them leeway to enforce, including their wishes on various matters such as executing people for converting to Christianity.
i forgot to add that part in - perhaps the elephant in the room: does the Koran allow for converts to be executed? it is one thing to be disowned (as happens in judaism and sometimes christianity) but executing people for following the dictates of their conscience is somethign else.
"i forgot to add that part in - perhaps the elephant in the room: does the Koran allow for converts to be executed?"
I'm not sure if it's the Qu'ran or the hadiths. But the FACT of the matter is that there are at least 6-7 Islamic countries that will execute you for apostasy. This whole execution thing is MY MAIN reason for proving this religion false; because it IS. And it is growing FAST. Who knows; perhaps I'll save a life or 2. Perhaps you will too.
"Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights."
The Bible proscribes the exact same punishment for apostasy. 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.
and
2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."
Islam is not alone in "protecting" its dogma with violent threats.
No disagreement here - in fact if you were to compare the two one could make the case that islam is more 'understanding' in the sense that if one had no opportunity to reject Allah one could still garner entry into paradise if he did more good than evil in his life as opposed to xtianity which states that a particular belief is what determines your destiny without concern for whether you ever had a choice about it
ironic how the most successful religions are based on physical/eternal threats
i must say that such a theory must jump through several hoops - if the gospel accounts are to be believed jesus was not exactly a hermit - the pharisees who had interacted with him were at his crucifixion others were there etc - however the muslims state that God played a trick on everyone's brain and it didnt really happen - just like the gnostics at that time believed - to me it all comes down to the issue of the atonement, this is just a proxy war on another issue
"i must say that such a theory must jump through several hoops"
Agreed. There's no need to elaborate on them either. It's almost common sense.
"however the muslims state that God played a trick on everyone's brain and it didnt really happen"
I refuse to serve a god who plays tricks on his own loyal followers. Especially when it comes to sound historical events and such an important issue as atonement.
i am aware of the muslim belief on that point. however my main concern with the passage relates to policy decisions and to what extent their holy book gives them leeway to enforce their wishes on various matters.
"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,"
So if it appeared to Christians and Jews and secularists and such, then that is exactly what the Quran said. So to say that people believed that Jesus died in no way invalidates Islam, because that is what is said.
If can prove that Jesus did die (was not immortal, God did not put a body in his place at the last second, etc..) then Islam would be proven false. But you can not.
"Islam denies the very crux of the christian faith, the crucifixion (and Resurrection) of Jesus."
"If can prove that Jesus did die then Islam would be proven false."
The only ignoramuses who try concoct conspiracy theories about the non-crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth are those who choose to follow a man who claimed to be a prophet and never prophesied anything that has come to pass, and tried to write historical record of an event 600 years after the fact. You won't find any PHd scholars of New Testament textual criticism who agree.
"So if it appeared to Christians and Jews and secularists and such, then that is exactly what the Quran said."
No, there were no Christians at the time Jesus was crucified. The Christians came after Jesus was raised.
It appeared to EVERYONE at the time of Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified. There was no special little cult of anti-Christs at the time going around saying that Jesus was never crucified. This idea (which is rejected by virtually all NT scholars) came about 600 years later.
If Jesus was recorded as dieing at 6PM and they would have had to bury him before the Sabbath (sunset) then there was little time for him to hang around being "dead". Because they didn't break his bones he could have survived longer than expected. How thoroughly did they check to see if the body to make sure it was dead?
You can not prove that Jesus was on the cross and did die.You can only give insults and resort to name calling.
Well, since you want to bring up eyewitnesses: "Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90100" for the writing of John. This could have been added because it was believed a prophecy was fulfilled or as "proof".
Even if you could show this to be an accurate account, you are assuming that nothing supernatural happened. (Assuming the person on the cross was Jesus to begin with) If Jesus could come back to life after a few days then he certainly could live with a mere punctured heart.
You were the one using an eye witness account, remember?... "Because they didn't break his bones" How do you know they didn't break his bones? Where did YOU get that info?
"This could have been added because it was believed a prophecy was fulfilled or as 'proof'.
What prophecy fulfilled? We have absolutely no reason to doubt the historical record of his side being pierced. It was common for the Roman soldiers to pierce the side of someone crucified. They were expert killers. And at that time, they had no idea that the "water" coming forthwith along with the blood played any significant role. There was no reason to make this up a that time...
... The only logical reason this account is included in John is because it happened. You have given us no logical reason to doubt the validity of this historical account.
"'Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90100' for the writing of John."
What does this even mean? If you mean that most scholars date John between 90-100 AD, so what? That's still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses & still doesn't give any reason to doubt his side being pierced, drawing blood and water from his pericardium.
"Even if you could show this to be an accurate account, you are assuming that nothing supernatural happened. (Assuming the person on the cross was Jesus to begin with) If Jesus could come back to life after a few days then he certainly could live with a mere punctured heart."
This just proves how desperate you are to believe a record of Jesus' non-crucifixion that came 600 years later. Why should I have to "assume" Jesus was on the cross? I know it with a historical certainty...
... Aren't you the one assuming that Muhammad was correct? Oh yeah, you must know with a historical certainty that Muhammad is correct, huh? Because, for some odd reason, Muhammad has the authority to bring into question historical data even though there is absolutely no evidence that he ever even read the New Testament in his life.
Why should I believe he lived with a punctured heart when the historical record says he died?
And I am not arguing for the Resurrection or any supernatural event. Just for the historical fact that he WAS crucified and DID die; which completely contradicts the Qu'ran.
"How about: They pierced his heart. He is dead."
That's quite a concession you've made, since this would totally contradict the unhistorical record within the Qu'ran.
You are tricky. You are trying to equate what I say to why you say. I do not intend that just because it is written that his bones were not broken is proof that that is the case.
"And at that time, they had no idea that the "water" ... played any significant role. "
I doubt that. Expert killers as you say would know where to make a lethal puncture and would know the result.
"still doesn't give any reason to doubt his side being pierced, drawing blood and water from his pericardium. "
Actually, the later parts of John are thought to be written by his predecessors after his death So someone has reason to doubt that even the same person wrote that account.
"No reason to make it up" is not proof that the account is accurate, even if there was in fact no reason. There are always reasons to enhance the truth besides.
Then you can not prove that Islam is false on that assertion.
If you can assert that Islam is false because of an unproved eyewitness account says his heart was pierced and therefore died, then I can assert that Christianity is false because of the same reason. No one can survive nor recover from that wound.
I am simply using your standards, not being tricky.
"You are trying to equate what I say to why you say. I do not intend that just because it is written that his bones were not broken is proof that that is the case."
Then why even bring up the broken bones in the first place???
"I do not intend that just because it is written"
But you DO intend that just because it is written by some guy 600 yrs later that Jesus wasn't crucified because some guy wrote it 600 years later.
"I doubt that. Expert killers as you say would know where to make a lethal puncture and would know the result."
Exactly my point. lol. The Romans knew how to kill.
But they did NOT know at that time that the water would be evidence 2000 years later due to modern medicine. You are giving the author of John too much credit as if he had seen dozens of sides pierced. Do you think the author of John was a Roman soldier?
And you still haven't given us any reason to doubt the record.
"If you can assert that Islam is false because of an unproved eyewitness account says his heart was pierced and therefore died, then I can assert that Christianity is false because of the same reason. No one can survive nor recover from that wound."
No, you have to give us clear, logical reasons to doubt a historical record that falls in line with what Roman soldiers would have done at the time, and falls in line with modern medicine.
I can give you logical reasons to doubt Muhammad's account.
"No, you have to give us clear, logical reasons to doubt a historical record"
I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean that it happened. It could easily have been that the writer wrote what he thought must have happened (just as you think) stating a deduction as a fact. If you study people you know thy do this.
Do you say that a punctured heart must kill a person? Do you say that a beaten and bused person can not be confused with another? Do you say that a person can not appear in another form? Do you say that an account of an event, if it matches what is expected, must be accurate?
"Now answer mine. Do you say that a punctured heart must kill a person?"
Yes, yes, and hell yes a punctured heart must kill a person in ANCIENT TIMES. There were no heart surgeons back then and no way to survive a freaking spear being thrust through your freaking heart 2,000 years ago. Good luck with proving otherwise.
Now, onto this other bullsh*t. Why the hell are you wasting my time? You just said you believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. My whole argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Jesus died. You could find me a doctor who says that it is possible to survive a punctured heart in ancient times, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference......
.....My whole argument is that HISTORY CONTRADICTS THE QU'RAN ON THE CRUCIFIXION ACCOUNT. You just said you believe Jesus was crucified. The Qu'ran says he WAS NOT. YOU JUST PROVED MY WHOLE FREAKING POINT. Now stop wasting my time and the readers' time.
I can't believe this whole freaking forum is filled with this bullsh*t by a dude who wants to play stupid mind games of semantics. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was crucified. Qu'ran is wrong. Qu'ran is wrong. Qu'ran is wrong.
Then even though you believe in miracles and an all powerful God and even in the special case of Jesus (in which many miracles supposedly occured) if Jesus MUST die from a heart wound then he must also remain dead.
Congratulations you have proved Christianity wrong. (along with Islam)
"if Jesus MUST die from a heart wound then he must also remain dead."
What does this have to do with the Qu'ran contradicting historical data? The Resurrection doesn't contradict historical data, only physical laws. No one is claiming that a supernatural event happened in the crucifixion, piercing of the heart, or death of Jesus. And no one is claiming that a supernatural event like his Resurrection contradicts historical data, only nature.
Where did you get this crap from? First of all, he died. But even if he didn't, crucifixion & death are NOT the same. Look up the definitions of both. And the Qu'ran says they killed him not NOR crucified him. The Qu'ran defines them as separate events as well (event1=killed him not & event2=nor crucified him). So you don't have to die to be crucified. But since YOU believe Jesus was crucified, then by YOUR definition, you believe he died as well.
Why does the fact that the Qu'ran later says "but it appeared so unto them" imply, in your opinion, that Muhammad intended to describe a supernatural event? Even if this point of supernature actually mattered (which it doesn't), there could be naturalistic explanations behind what Muhammad was trying to say that in no way imply a supernatural event in that particular verse. All it proves is Muhammad got it WRONG, DEAD WRONG. He never had access to a New Testament, so he couldn't review the data.
"If can prove that Jesus did die (was not immortal, God did not put a body in his place at the last second, etc..) then Islam would be proven false. But you can not."
Who says GOD replaced the body?
And you just admitted to believing that Jesus was crucified, & you later go on to say that your definition of crucifixion = crucifixion + death.
So if a NON-believer is admitting to me that Jesus WAS crucified, & his definition implies death as well, then you just admitted that I proved Islam false.
No corruption doesn't mean what u r saying ..I am from Pakistan and what u said about Pakistani and Palestinian leader saying Kill the infidels, its horribly wrong ..
asad24041992 2 months ago
The Qur'an says Jesus was never crucified. This is all you need to know to debunk this false religion.
The vast majority of scholars, secular, Christian, and Jewish, agree that Jesus' crucifixion is historically accurate and that it actually happened. Muhammad is the first historical figure to say that it didn't.
Sounds pretty anti-Christ if you ask me.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
They believe a stand in took the place of Jesus just before he died. The is quite outside the realm of secular scholars. And is a difference of faith between Muslims and the others. you are simply concluding here that Islam is false because it isn't your religion. If you assume that Islam is true (instead of our religion) you will see how their belief in Jesus not being crucified does not disprove it and believing that Jesus did die is "anti-Christ."
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"They believe a stand in took the place of Jesus just before he died."
This is not in the Qu'ran. It says nothing about Judas or anyone else standing in Jesus' place. This is a tale that muslims have to concoct in order to reconcile the unscholarly imaginary belief that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"you are simply concluding here that Islam is false because it isn't your religion."
No, I am not. You are simply placing these words in my mouth. I know Islam is false because it denies a historical event that is agreed upon my the vast majority of all scholars, not just Christian scholars. The only scholars who deny the crucifixion are muslims. Go figure.
Islam denies the very crux of the christian faith, the crucifixion (and Resurrection) of Jesus. Jesus warned us about this false prophet.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"If you assume that Islam is true you will see how their belief in Jesus not being crucified does not disprove it"
No. There is no assuming anything. Islam cannot define itself outside the negation of the Christian faith and HISTORICITY. It's that simple. You would do well to do a little more studying yourself rather than place words in other people's mouth. If you did a bit of studying, you'd know that there is nowhere in the Qu'ran (or hadiths) that say someone stood in Jesus' place.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
I'm sure epaminados, even with all his doubts, would agree that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, and not a substitute. He knows as well as I & most scholars that denying the crucifixion would be denying one of the most superbly attested facts in ancient history, if not THE most superbly attested fact in ancient history. The reasons scholars accept the crucifixion & 75% of them accept the empty tomb is because of the overwhelming amount of this thing we call EVIDENCE. It happened. Plain & simple.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
i would agree with the sentiment that Jesus was a historical figure who ended up being crucified by teh romans - tacitus being the most reliable secular reference on point (even though it only states what christians believe about their messiah). still, this does not automatically falsify the muslims claim that there could have been a 'subsitution" but it would put the burden of proof on them to show that this was the case - curiously, this view is the same as the one held by the gnostics
epaminodas 2 years ago
"still, this does not automatically falsify the muslims claim that there could have been a 'subsitution' but it would put the burden of proof on them to show that this was the case"
Of course it does. You don't think the eyewitnesses knew what Jesus looked like?
You don't think scholars have already debunked the theory that it may not have been Jesus on the cross? This is less credible than the evil twin theory.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"curiously, this view is the same as the one held by the gnostics"
It's funny you say that since so many of the muslim writings are stolen from gnostic writings, such as the gnostic gospel of Thomas.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
there's a theory among certain scholars who regard islam as nothing more but a corruption of gnosticism intermingled with some christian beliefs and certain arabic pagan influences - this view is not majoritarian among scholars and is often downplayed because it is quite controversial but it does exist
epaminodas 2 years ago
"there's a theory among certain scholars who regard islam as nothing more but a corruption of gnosticism intermingled with some christian beliefs and certain arabic pagan influences"
There is evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that certain passages were stolen from gnostic texts. Such as the story Muhammad mentioned about Jesus turning a clay bird into a live bird. This was mentioned ONLY in the gnostic gospel of Thomas, which it was stolen from.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
you're referring to the infancy gospel of thomas (wholly different from the gnostic gospel of thomas) - these infancy stories were prevalent in teh area but none of them even touched apocryphal status because they were not established as reliable traditions but they were considered gnostic - at least not from what i know.
epaminodas 2 years ago
Comment removed
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"you're referring to the infancy gospel of thomas (wholly different from the gnostic gospel of thomas"
My bad. You're right. But isn't the infancy gospel still considered gnostic?
theman77777777232 2 years ago
i thought it wasn't but i'm not 100% on it - haven't read it in a loooooooonnnnnngggg time lol
epaminodas 2 years ago
"i thought it wasn't but i'm not 100% on it - haven't read it in a loooooooonnnnnngggg time lol "
I'm not sure either. lol. I had one too many margaritas tonight and I can't search google fast enough. lol
Peace.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"however my main concern with the passage relates to policy decisions and to what extent their holy book gives them leeway to enforce their wishes on various matters."
Well my main concern is to show that since such a large part of their religion is false & stolen from gnostic texts, then they don't need to follow the extent of what their holy book gives them leeway to enforce, including their wishes on various matters such as executing people for converting to Christianity.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
i forgot to add that part in - perhaps the elephant in the room: does the Koran allow for converts to be executed? it is one thing to be disowned (as happens in judaism and sometimes christianity) but executing people for following the dictates of their conscience is somethign else.
epaminodas 2 years ago
"i forgot to add that part in - perhaps the elephant in the room: does the Koran allow for converts to be executed?"
I'm not sure if it's the Qu'ran or the hadiths. But the FACT of the matter is that there are at least 6-7 Islamic countries that will execute you for apostasy. This whole execution thing is MY MAIN reason for proving this religion false; because it IS. And it is growing FAST. Who knows; perhaps I'll save a life or 2. Perhaps you will too.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
wikipedia:
"Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights."
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Saudi Arabia = our friend, Afghanistan = democracy - wow..
epaminodas 2 years ago
we would then be saving all of mankind, per koranic instruction.....ironically enough
epaminodas 2 years ago
"we would then be saving all of mankind, per koranic instruction.....ironically enough"
Indeed we would, my agnostic brother in Christ.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
The Bible proscribes the exact same punishment for apostasy. 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.
and
2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."
Islam is not alone in "protecting" its dogma with violent threats.
VulcanForge 2 years ago
No disagreement here - in fact if you were to compare the two one could make the case that islam is more 'understanding' in the sense that if one had no opportunity to reject Allah one could still garner entry into paradise if he did more good than evil in his life as opposed to xtianity which states that a particular belief is what determines your destiny without concern for whether you ever had a choice about it
ironic how the most successful religions are based on physical/eternal threats
epaminodas 2 years ago
"Islam is not alone in 'protecting' its dogma with violent threats."
It seems Islam stands alone in the vast majority of cases where these apostasy executions actually take place in our present day modern world.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
i must say that such a theory must jump through several hoops - if the gospel accounts are to be believed jesus was not exactly a hermit - the pharisees who had interacted with him were at his crucifixion others were there etc - however the muslims state that God played a trick on everyone's brain and it didnt really happen - just like the gnostics at that time believed - to me it all comes down to the issue of the atonement, this is just a proxy war on another issue
epaminodas 2 years ago
"i must say that such a theory must jump through several hoops"
Agreed. There's no need to elaborate on them either. It's almost common sense.
"however the muslims state that God played a trick on everyone's brain and it didnt really happen"
I refuse to serve a god who plays tricks on his own loyal followers. Especially when it comes to sound historical events and such an important issue as atonement.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
i am aware of the muslim belief on that point. however my main concern with the passage relates to policy decisions and to what extent their holy book gives them leeway to enforce their wishes on various matters.
epaminodas 2 years ago
"i am aware of the muslim belief on that point."
Your robot said that you didn't know much about Islam. So I thought I'd elaborate on what proves their religion false.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"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,"
So if it appeared to Christians and Jews and secularists and such, then that is exactly what the Quran said. So to say that people believed that Jesus died in no way invalidates Islam, because that is what is said.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
If can prove that Jesus did die (was not immortal, God did not put a body in his place at the last second, etc..) then Islam would be proven false. But you can not.
"Islam denies the very crux of the christian faith, the crucifixion (and Resurrection) of Jesus."
Haha, yep it does. And?
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"If can prove that Jesus did die then Islam would be proven false."
The only ignoramuses who try concoct conspiracy theories about the non-crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth are those who choose to follow a man who claimed to be a prophet and never prophesied anything that has come to pass, and tried to write historical record of an event 600 years after the fact. You won't find any PHd scholars of New Testament textual criticism who agree.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"So if it appeared to Christians and Jews and secularists and such, then that is exactly what the Quran said."
No, there were no Christians at the time Jesus was crucified. The Christians came after Jesus was raised.
It appeared to EVERYONE at the time of Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified. There was no special little cult of anti-Christs at the time going around saying that Jesus was never crucified. This idea (which is rejected by virtually all NT scholars) came about 600 years later.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"It appeared to EVERYONE at the time of Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified."
Yep, just as the Quran said.
"You won't find any PHd scholars of New Testament textual criticism who agree. "
So by what method did the "eyewitnesses" use to conclusively conclude that Jesus did die?
Mark 16:12 "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country."
So if Jesus can take different forms then how do they know that the person they saw was Jesus?
DayfallKat 2 years ago
If Jesus was recorded as dieing at 6PM and they would have had to bury him before the Sabbath (sunset) then there was little time for him to hang around being "dead". Because they didn't break his bones he could have survived longer than expected. How thoroughly did they check to see if the body to make sure it was dead?
You can not prove that Jesus was on the cross and did die.You can only give insults and resort to name calling.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"So by what method did the 'eyewitnesses' use to conclusively conclude that Jesus did die?"
"then there was little time for him to hang around being "dead"."
"How thoroughly did they check to see if the body to make sure it was dead?"
John 19:34 -
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
We know through modern medicine that the heart is surrounded by a water-like, fluid-filled sack. They pierced his heart. He died.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Well, since you want to bring up eyewitnesses: "Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90100" for the writing of John. This could have been added because it was believed a prophecy was fulfilled or as "proof".
Even if you could show this to be an accurate account, you are assuming that nothing supernatural happened. (Assuming the person on the cross was Jesus to begin with) If Jesus could come back to life after a few days then he certainly could live with a mere punctured heart.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"They pierced his heart. He died."
How about: They pierced his heart. He is dead.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"Well, since you want to bring up eyewitnesses"
You were the one using an eye witness account, remember?... "Because they didn't break his bones" How do you know they didn't break his bones? Where did YOU get that info?
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"This could have been added because it was believed a prophecy was fulfilled or as 'proof'.
What prophecy fulfilled? We have absolutely no reason to doubt the historical record of his side being pierced. It was common for the Roman soldiers to pierce the side of someone crucified. They were expert killers. And at that time, they had no idea that the "water" coming forthwith along with the blood played any significant role. There was no reason to make this up a that time...
theman77777777232 2 years ago
... The only logical reason this account is included in John is because it happened. You have given us no logical reason to doubt the validity of this historical account.
"'Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90100' for the writing of John."
What does this even mean? If you mean that most scholars date John between 90-100 AD, so what? That's still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses & still doesn't give any reason to doubt his side being pierced, drawing blood and water from his pericardium.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Comment removed
theman77777777232 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even if you could show this to be an accurate account, you are assuming that nothing supernatural happened. (Assuming the person on the cross was Jesus to begin with) If Jesus could come back to life after a few days then he certainly could live with a mere punctured heart."
This just proves how desperate you are to believe a record of Jesus' non-crucifixion that came 600 years later. Why should I have to "assume" Jesus was on the cross? I know it with a historical certainty...
theman77777777232 2 years ago
... Aren't you the one assuming that Muhammad was correct? Oh yeah, you must know with a historical certainty that Muhammad is correct, huh? Because, for some odd reason, Muhammad has the authority to bring into question historical data even though there is absolutely no evidence that he ever even read the New Testament in his life.
Why should I believe he lived with a punctured heart when the historical record says he died?
theman77777777232 2 years ago
And I am not arguing for the Resurrection or any supernatural event. Just for the historical fact that he WAS crucified and DID die; which completely contradicts the Qu'ran.
"How about: They pierced his heart. He is dead."
That's quite a concession you've made, since this would totally contradict the unhistorical record within the Qu'ran.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"How do you know they didn't break his bones? "
You are tricky. You are trying to equate what I say to why you say. I do not intend that just because it is written that his bones were not broken is proof that that is the case.
"And at that time, they had no idea that the "water" ... played any significant role. "
I doubt that. Expert killers as you say would know where to make a lethal puncture and would know the result.
"There was no reason to make this up"
Except for what I have said.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"still doesn't give any reason to doubt his side being pierced, drawing blood and water from his pericardium. "
Actually, the later parts of John are thought to be written by his predecessors after his death So someone has reason to doubt that even the same person wrote that account.
"No reason to make it up" is not proof that the account is accurate, even if there was in fact no reason. There are always reasons to enhance the truth besides.
As you can not prove that the event did occur
DayfallKat 2 years ago
Then you can not prove that Islam is false on that assertion.
If you can assert that Islam is false because of an unproved eyewitness account says his heart was pierced and therefore died, then I can assert that Christianity is false because of the same reason. No one can survive nor recover from that wound.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"You are tricky."
I am simply using your standards, not being tricky.
"You are trying to equate what I say to why you say. I do not intend that just because it is written that his bones were not broken is proof that that is the case."
Then why even bring up the broken bones in the first place???
"I do not intend that just because it is written"
But you DO intend that just because it is written by some guy 600 yrs later that Jesus wasn't crucified because some guy wrote it 600 years later.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"I doubt that. Expert killers as you say would know where to make a lethal puncture and would know the result."
Exactly my point. lol. The Romans knew how to kill.
But they did NOT know at that time that the water would be evidence 2000 years later due to modern medicine. You are giving the author of John too much credit as if he had seen dozens of sides pierced. Do you think the author of John was a Roman soldier?
And you still haven't given us any reason to doubt the record.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"So someone has reason to doubt that even the same person wrote that account."
If that were true, why could they not remember what John told them?
"'No reason to make it up' is not proof that the account is accurate, even if there was in fact no reason."
Tell us why you believe Muhammad's account, again.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"If you can assert that Islam is false because of an unproved eyewitness account says his heart was pierced and therefore died, then I can assert that Christianity is false because of the same reason. No one can survive nor recover from that wound."
No, you have to give us clear, logical reasons to doubt a historical record that falls in line with what Roman soldiers would have done at the time, and falls in line with modern medicine.
I can give you logical reasons to doubt Muhammad's account.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"But you DO intend that just because it is written by some guy 600 yrs later that Jesus wasn't crucified because some guy wrote it 600 years later."
I do? When? Where? Why am I the last to know of these things?
", why could they not remember what John told them?"
Where does it say that John told them that?
"Tell us why you believe Muhammad's account, again. "
I don't need to believe it to know your reasoning is faulty.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"No, you have to give us clear, logical reasons to doubt a historical record"
I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean that it happened. It could easily have been that the writer wrote what he thought must have happened (just as you think) stating a deduction as a fact. If you study people you know thy do this.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
Do you say that a punctured heart must kill a person? Do you say that a beaten and bused person can not be confused with another? Do you say that a person can not appear in another form? Do you say that an account of an event, if it matches what is expected, must be accurate?
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"I do? When? Where? Why am I the last to know of these things?"
Well my bad, let's clear it up then. One question. One single solitary question. Answer yes or no. Don't type anything else:
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified?
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Yes.
Now answer mine. Do you say that a punctured heart must kill a person?
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"Now answer mine. Do you say that a punctured heart must kill a person?"
Yes, yes, and hell yes a punctured heart must kill a person in ANCIENT TIMES. There were no heart surgeons back then and no way to survive a freaking spear being thrust through your freaking heart 2,000 years ago. Good luck with proving otherwise.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Now, onto this other bullsh*t. Why the hell are you wasting my time? You just said you believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. My whole argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Jesus died. You could find me a doctor who says that it is possible to survive a punctured heart in ancient times, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference......
theman77777777232 2 years ago
.....My whole argument is that HISTORY CONTRADICTS THE QU'RAN ON THE CRUCIFIXION ACCOUNT. You just said you believe Jesus was crucified. The Qu'ran says he WAS NOT. YOU JUST PROVED MY WHOLE FREAKING POINT. Now stop wasting my time and the readers' time.
I can't believe this whole freaking forum is filled with this bullsh*t by a dude who wants to play stupid mind games of semantics. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was crucified. Qu'ran is wrong. Qu'ran is wrong. Qu'ran is wrong.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
If you don't die then you weren't crucified.
"Yes, yes, and hell yes"
Then even though you believe in miracles and an all powerful God and even in the special case of Jesus (in which many miracles supposedly occured) if Jesus MUST die from a heart wound then he must also remain dead.
Congratulations you have proved Christianity wrong. (along with Islam)
DayfallKat 2 years ago
Comment removed
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Comment removed
theman77777777232 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"if Jesus MUST die from a heart wound then he must also remain dead."
What does this have to do with the Qu'ran contradicting historical data? The Resurrection doesn't contradict historical data, only physical laws. No one is claiming that a supernatural event happened in the crucifixion, piercing of the heart, or death of Jesus. And no one is claiming that a supernatural event like his Resurrection contradicts historical data, only nature.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"If you don't die then you weren't crucified."
Where did you get this crap from? First of all, he died. But even if he didn't, crucifixion & death are NOT the same. Look up the definitions of both. And the Qu'ran says they killed him not NOR crucified him. The Qu'ran defines them as separate events as well (event1=killed him not & event2=nor crucified him). So you don't have to die to be crucified. But since YOU believe Jesus was crucified, then by YOUR definition, you believe he died as well.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
Why does the fact that the Qu'ran later says "but it appeared so unto them" imply, in your opinion, that Muhammad intended to describe a supernatural event? Even if this point of supernature actually mattered (which it doesn't), there could be naturalistic explanations behind what Muhammad was trying to say that in no way imply a supernatural event in that particular verse. All it proves is Muhammad got it WRONG, DEAD WRONG. He never had access to a New Testament, so he couldn't review the data.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
"If can prove that Jesus did die (was not immortal, God did not put a body in his place at the last second, etc..) then Islam would be proven false. But you can not."
Who says GOD replaced the body?
And you just admitted to believing that Jesus was crucified, & you later go on to say that your definition of crucifixion = crucifixion + death.
So if a NON-believer is admitting to me that Jesus WAS crucified, & his definition implies death as well, then you just admitted that I proved Islam false.
theman77777777232 2 years ago