Surah 4:157 - And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
Is this true of Muslims? Jesus was not crucified?
Islam says Jesus was not crucified
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
I am suprised that you don't recognize that verse from the first chapter of the Quran. Is english your native language? If not let us know what you speak I can link to Bible verses in your language.
Your reasoning with the John verse used to examine the Quran makes someone else other then allah the author of the Quran.
Christians believe in One True GOD, always have. It is our concept of who GOD is that is different and makes muslims think we need to have our necks smited!
Are we showing allah the straight way?Even the Quran uses such technigue in the first chapter- Show us the straight way, doesn't allah know the straight way? Isn't this allah speaking?
Your reasoning with the John verse used to examine the Quran makes someone else other then allah the author of the Quran.
Christians believe in One True GOD, always have. It is our concept of who GOD is that is different and makes muslims think we need to have our necks smited!
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #62
[quote="van"]Jesus speaking to the disciples foretold of HIS crucifixion:
Matthew 17
22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.
Mark 9
31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." 32But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
Luke 9
44"Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." 45But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.
But he is stating son of man here:) and as per christians he is son of God. Also Jesus didnt stayed in tomb for 3 days . So the verses are not from Jesus and are not real, its itself contradicting. Bring another evidence my friend
Please read Acts 8 and 9 It is a very cool - tells about Paul, how he had been presecuting Christians, putting them in prison and after meeting Jesus on the road to Damscus converted.
This is statement from Paul.he is no any authority, we can;t consider his vision for anything, if something comes direct from Jesus, it is acceptable.Paul is himself themost controversial figure in christian history.
Evidence from the Greek NT suggesting that "Jesus Barabbas" not "Jesus of Nazareth" is the one who got crucified!
The sections of this article are:
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never got crucified.
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
3- Conclusion.
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never got crucified:
Before we begin, it is important to know that according to the Apocalypse (Revelations) of Peter, the Acts of John, and the great Seth, Jesus of Nazareth did not get crucified. Instead, GOD Almighty saved him and substituted him for another person.
You can also read the whole section of the early Disciples' writings at:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac24.htm#links
Now having said that, I have discovered something very very interesting regarding the two Jesuses that existed 2000 years ago, and were about to both be executed together at the same time, except when the Roman Emperor finally gave his pardon to one of them!
Since the New Testament is nothing but a rewrite, and it's authors were all mysterious, and the books and gospels in the NT were written centuries after Jesus of Nazareth, then certainly, the nonsense that we read in the Bible today about Jesus of Nazareth got crucified is not, after all, true especially that the early Christians' Doctrines confirm that Jesus never got crucified, along with the Divine Religion of Islam.
Before we look at Jesus Barabbas, it is important to know that in Greek, Barabbas (Bar Abba) actually means "Son of the Father". And since Jesus of Nazareth was also called "Son of GOD" or "Son of the Father" in the Bible, then it is quite possible and highly probably that GOD Almighty saved Prophet Jesus from crucifixion by letting the Romans crucify Jesus Barabbas (Jesus Bar Abba, which means "Jesus the son of the Father" ) instead of the Jesus of Nazareth!
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
Son of GOD is not literal:
From http://www.answers.com/topic/names-and-titles-of-jesus:
Son of God
Jesus's transfiguration, as depicted in this detail of a Raphael painting, is mentioned in all the synoptic Gospels and Christians have long referred to it as a manifestation of the divine glory of Jesus before the events surrounding his death.
The New Testament frequently refers to Jesus as the son of God; Jesus seldom does, but often refers to God as his father. Christians universally understand this to mean that Jesus was literally God's son " according to the Nicene Creed, God's only begotten son, one with the Father (cf. John 3:16). The phrase itself is thus taken to be synonymous with divinity. The Hebrew Bible, however, uses the phrase "son of God" in other senses: to refer to heavenly or angelic beings; to refer to the Children of Israel, and to refer to kings. There is no New Testament evidence to suggest that early Christians thought of Jesus as an angel, so the first two usages seem not to apply.
However, Mark identifies Jesus as the son of King David, and Matthew and Luke provide lineages linking Jesus to King David. II Samuel 7: 14, Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26"27, refer to David as the son of God, although historians find no evidence that the authors of the Bible believed David to be divine or literally God's son. (Many Christians interpret these and other Psalms as referring prophetically to Jesus, the "seed" referred to in Psalm 89. See Christ in the Psalms by Father Patrick Reardon.)
In post-Biblical Judaism, the title was often applied to righteous men: Ecclesiasticus 4: 10 and the Wisdom of Solomon 2: 17"18 use the term to refer to just men, and Jubilees 1: 24"25 has God declaring all righteous men to be his sons. Philo too wrote that good people are sons of God, and various rabbis in the Talmud declare that when Israelites are good, they are sons of God. The Talmud provides one example that parallels that of Jesus: Rabbi Hanina, whom God referred to as "my son", was also a miracle worker, and was able to resist Agrat, queen of the demons. Some scholars thus suggest that "son of God" was a title used in the Galilee by miracle-workers. Other scholars have suggested that the identification of "son of God" with divinity is pagan in origin; the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt referred to themselves as sons of Zeus or of Helios; Roman emperors used the title divi filius, or son of God. They suggest that the belief that Jesus was in fact the "son of God", and the association of his divine paternity with his being "messiah", were added after Christianity broke with Judaism.
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In Aramaic, "son of the father" would be "bar-Abb". This title has led to some non-traditional interpretations of the story of Barabbas.
Jesus Barabbas:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?met ... t=Barabbas:
(Emphasis below are mine)
Barabbas
In the Christian story of the passion of Jesus , Barabbas, actually Jesus bar-Abbas, (Aramaic Bar-abb, "son of the father"), was the insurrectionary murderer whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem. The "crowd" (ochlos)" which becomes "the Jews" in translation" were offered a choice of whether to have Barabbas or Christ released from Roman custody, according to the closely parallel canonic gospels of Matthew (27:16), Mark (15:7), Luke (23:18 - 19), and the more divergent accounts in John (18:40) and the formerly lost gospel of Peter
Barabbas himself was most likely a member of the sicarii, a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force, for Mark (15:7) mentions that he had committed murder in an insurrection. The penalty for his crime was death by crucifixion, but according to the Gospels there was a prevailing custom in Jerusalem that allowed Pilate, the praefectus or governor of Judaea, to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim. The crowd ("the multitude") chose Jesus Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified.
The story of Barabbas has special social significances, partly because it has frequently been used to lay the blame for the Crucifixion on the Jews and justify anti-Semitism. Equally, the social significance of the story to early hearers was that it shifted blame away from the Roman imperium, removing an impediment to Christianity's eventual official acceptance.
"Jesus Barabbas"
According to the United Bible Societies' text, Matthew 27:17 reads: "...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas] or Jesus which is called Christ [Greek: Iesous ton legomenon Christon]?"
Some early Greek manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name twice as Jesus bar Abbas: manuscripts in the Caesarean group of texts, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries and some of the manuscripts used by Origen in the 3rd century, all support the fact that Barabbas' name was originally Jesus Barabbas, though not all modern New Testament translations reflect this. Origen deliberately rejected the reading in the manuscript he was working with, and left out "Iesous" deliberately, for reverential considerations, certainly a strongly motivated omission. Early editors did not want the name Jesus associated with anyone who was a sinner. Mark's parallels between the two men, each a "Jesus, son of the Father," constructing a parable, may also have been considered overplayed (see below).
The alternative possibility, that "Jesus" was unintentionally inserted twice before Barabbas' name, in verses 16 and 17, is unlikely, especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus, dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of "called the Christ" to Jesus' name (Iesous ton legomenon Christon) in verse 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called "Jesus" (Iesous ton Barabbas). Otherwise, a mere "Jesus" would have been sufficient to distinguish the two.
Historicity
There is no evidence independent of Mark that it was ever the custom at feasts for the Romans to release a prisoner requested by the Jews, or any other subject people. No other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. Conversely, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice would make no sense, and releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale.
Were Barabbas and Jesus the same person?
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In the gospels, Jesus refers to himself as "son of God" several times, and thus "bar-Abb" could actually be a reference to Jesus himself as "son of the father". "Bar-Abb" could also be a polite way to refer to a boy whose father's name was not known, though no contemporary usage of this kind has been identified.
Hyam Maccoby and some other scholars have averred that Jesus was known as "bar-Abba", because of his custom of addressing God as 'Abba' in prayer, and referring to God as Abba in his preaching. It follows that when the Jewish crowd clamored before Pontius Pilate to "free Bar Abba" they could have meant Jesus. Anti-Semitic elements in the Christian church, the argument goes, altered the narrative to make it appear that the demand was for the freedom of somebody else (a brigand or insurrectionist) named "Barabbas". This was, the theory goes, part of the tendency to shift the blame for the Crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the Romans.
Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua (the Sayings of Jesus) agrees completely with Maccoby and others who aver that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. However, Urrutia opposes the notion that Jesus may have either led or planned a violent insurrection. Jesus was a strong advocate of "turning the other cheek" - which means not submission but strong and courageous, though nonviolent, defiance and resistance. Jesus, in this view, must have been the planner and leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pilate's plan to set up Roman Eagle standards on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The story of this successful resistance is told by Josephus " who, curiously, does not say who was the leader, but does tell of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus just two paragraphs later in a passage whose authenticity is heavily disputed. (See article Josephus on Jesus, in particular the section "Arabic Version.")
A less purposely anti-Semitic interpretation is that the story derives from the Jewish crowd (many of whom may have been among those who had hailed Jesus as a king perhaps less than a week earlier) calling out for the freedom of the man who (somewhat unusually for that era) referred to God as "father" and referred to himself as "son-of the father" (bar-Abba in Aramaic) " namely, Jesus himself. Pilate refused their pleas (and likely would have been disciplined by his superiors in Rome, if he did not punish both insurrectionists and those who claimed to be king of the Jews). Later, when people who did not understand Aramaic retold the story, they still included the petition for freedom, but bar-Abbas became a separate person - incidentally thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so.
Further interpretations along these same lines raise questions about how much difference there was between Jesus and an insurrectionist. In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. Soon afterwards and just shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords " and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane. Pilate would be reprimanded for releasing even a peaceful man who had others calling anyone but Caesar the "king of the Jews", no less one whose methods appeared to include violence.
Arthur Drew, a German Hegelian philosopher, in his books Christ Myth (1924) and Legend of Peter (1924), argued that first century Christianity was a social ethical movement which needed no founder to explain its rise. A long standing feature of the Semitic world was an annual sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" " Barabbas, originally called Jesus Barabbas. This may account for the myth that a historical person, Jesus, actually lived. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned, so Drew's theory would seem to require at least some further explanation.
A possible parable?
This "practice" of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable. An interpretation, using modern Reader Response theory, suggests no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened at all, and that the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus is a parable meant to draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel into the narrative so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father.
A critical analysis of possibly fictive elements in Mark's series of ironic parallels, and a comparison with Homer's contest between the beggars for the approval of the suitors in the Odyssey, is laid out in detail in Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark[1] (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_ ... abbas.html).
See also
Barabbas (movie): the 1962 epic starring Anthony Quinn
External links
John Dominic Crossan, "Crowd control": (http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=2974) identity, purpose and size of "the crowd" in Mark and its adapted purposes in Luke and John, on the occasion of the Mel Gibson film of 2004.
More on the interpretation that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.html)
The Absurd Life: Jesus & Barabbas (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... bsurd.html)
3- Conclusion:
As we clearly see above, and in the light of the early Disciples' writings above, it is quite possible that Jesus Barabbas (Jesus the son of the Father) was the one who got crucified by the Romans in the place Jesus of Nazareth, since:
1- Jesus Barabbas was anti-Romans and wanted to free the Jews from the Romans.
2- The Emperor pardoned one of the Jesuses from execution/crucifixion, which perfectly seems to suggest that the Jesus of Nazareth was the one who was pardoned/released.
3- The Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of John, the great Seth, and the Noble Quran all claim that a 'substitute' was put in the place of Jesus of Nazareth for execution.
There is no question to me that Jesus of Nazareth never got crucified on the cross! Again, please visit the main section of the early Disciples' writings for further proofs and details:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac24.htm#links
Matthew 17
22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.
Mark 9
31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." 32But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
Luke 9
44"Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." 45But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.
But he is stating son of man here:) and as per christians he is son of God. Also Jesus didnt stayed in tomb for 3 days . So the verses are not from Jesus and are not real, its itself contradicting. Bring another evidence my friend
Please read Acts 8 and 9 It is a very cool - tells about Paul, how he had been presecuting Christians, putting them in prison and after meeting Jesus on the road to Damscus converted.
This is statement from Paul.he is no any authority, we can;t consider his vision for anything, if something comes direct from Jesus, it is acceptable.Paul is himself themost controversial figure in christian history.
Evidence from the Greek NT suggesting that "Jesus Barabbas" not "Jesus of Nazareth" is the one who got crucified!
The sections of this article are:
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never got crucified.
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
3- Conclusion.
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never got crucified:
Before we begin, it is important to know that according to the Apocalypse (Revelations) of Peter, the Acts of John, and the great Seth, Jesus of Nazareth did not get crucified. Instead, GOD Almighty saved him and substituted him for another person.
You can also read the whole section of the early Disciples' writings at:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac24.htm#links
Now having said that, I have discovered something very very interesting regarding the two Jesuses that existed 2000 years ago, and were about to both be executed together at the same time, except when the Roman Emperor finally gave his pardon to one of them!
Since the New Testament is nothing but a rewrite, and it's authors were all mysterious, and the books and gospels in the NT were written centuries after Jesus of Nazareth, then certainly, the nonsense that we read in the Bible today about Jesus of Nazareth got crucified is not, after all, true especially that the early Christians' Doctrines confirm that Jesus never got crucified, along with the Divine Religion of Islam.
Before we look at Jesus Barabbas, it is important to know that in Greek, Barabbas (Bar Abba) actually means "Son of the Father". And since Jesus of Nazareth was also called "Son of GOD" or "Son of the Father" in the Bible, then it is quite possible and highly probably that GOD Almighty saved Prophet Jesus from crucifixion by letting the Romans crucify Jesus Barabbas (Jesus Bar Abba, which means "Jesus the son of the Father" ) instead of the Jesus of Nazareth!
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
Son of GOD is not literal:
From http://www.answers.com/topic/names-and-titles-of-jesus:
Son of God
Jesus's transfiguration, as depicted in this detail of a Raphael painting, is mentioned in all the synoptic Gospels and Christians have long referred to it as a manifestation of the divine glory of Jesus before the events surrounding his death.
The New Testament frequently refers to Jesus as the son of God; Jesus seldom does, but often refers to God as his father. Christians universally understand this to mean that Jesus was literally God's son " according to the Nicene Creed, God's only begotten son, one with the Father (cf. John 3:16). The phrase itself is thus taken to be synonymous with divinity. The Hebrew Bible, however, uses the phrase "son of God" in other senses: to refer to heavenly or angelic beings; to refer to the Children of Israel, and to refer to kings. There is no New Testament evidence to suggest that early Christians thought of Jesus as an angel, so the first two usages seem not to apply.
However, Mark identifies Jesus as the son of King David, and Matthew and Luke provide lineages linking Jesus to King David. II Samuel 7: 14, Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26"27, refer to David as the son of God, although historians find no evidence that the authors of the Bible believed David to be divine or literally God's son. (Many Christians interpret these and other Psalms as referring prophetically to Jesus, the "seed" referred to in Psalm 89. See Christ in the Psalms by Father Patrick Reardon.)
In post-Biblical Judaism, the title was often applied to righteous men: Ecclesiasticus 4: 10 and the Wisdom of Solomon 2: 17"18 use the term to refer to just men, and Jubilees 1: 24"25 has God declaring all righteous men to be his sons. Philo too wrote that good people are sons of God, and various rabbis in the Talmud declare that when Israelites are good, they are sons of God. The Talmud provides one example that parallels that of Jesus: Rabbi Hanina, whom God referred to as "my son", was also a miracle worker, and was able to resist Agrat, queen of the demons. Some scholars thus suggest that "son of God" was a title used in the Galilee by miracle-workers. Other scholars have suggested that the identification of "son of God" with divinity is pagan in origin; the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt referred to themselves as sons of Zeus or of Helios; Roman emperors used the title divi filius, or son of God. They suggest that the belief that Jesus was in fact the "son of God", and the association of his divine paternity with his being "messiah", were added after Christianity broke with Judaism.
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In Aramaic, "son of the father" would be "bar-Abb". This title has led to some non-traditional interpretations of the story of Barabbas.
Jesus Barabbas:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?met ... t=Barabbas:
(Emphasis below are mine)
Barabbas
In the Christian story of the passion of Jesus , Barabbas, actually Jesus bar-Abbas, (Aramaic Bar-abb, "son of the father"), was the insurrectionary murderer whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem. The "crowd" (ochlos)" which becomes "the Jews" in translation" were offered a choice of whether to have Barabbas or Christ released from Roman custody, according to the closely parallel canonic gospels of Matthew (27:16), Mark (15:7), Luke (23:18 - 19), and the more divergent accounts in John (18:40) and the formerly lost gospel of Peter
Barabbas himself was most likely a member of the sicarii, a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force, for Mark (15:7) mentions that he had committed murder in an insurrection. The penalty for his crime was death by crucifixion, but according to the Gospels there was a prevailing custom in Jerusalem that allowed Pilate, the praefectus or governor of Judaea, to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim. The crowd ("the multitude") chose Jesus Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified.
The story of Barabbas has special social significances, partly because it has frequently been used to lay the blame for the Crucifixion on the Jews and justify anti-Semitism. Equally, the social significance of the story to early hearers was that it shifted blame away from the Roman imperium, removing an impediment to Christianity's eventual official acceptance.
"Jesus Barabbas"
According to the United Bible Societies' text, Matthew 27:17 reads: "...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas] or Jesus which is called Christ [Greek: Iesous ton legomenon Christon]?"
Some early Greek manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name twice as Jesus bar Abbas: manuscripts in the Caesarean group of texts, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries and some of the manuscripts used by Origen in the 3rd century, all support the fact that Barabbas' name was originally Jesus Barabbas, though not all modern New Testament translations reflect this. Origen deliberately rejected the reading in the manuscript he was working with, and left out "Iesous" deliberately, for reverential considerations, certainly a strongly motivated omission. Early editors did not want the name Jesus associated with anyone who was a sinner. Mark's parallels between the two men, each a "Jesus, son of the Father," constructing a parable, may also have been considered overplayed (see below).
The alternative possibility, that "Jesus" was unintentionally inserted twice before Barabbas' name, in verses 16 and 17, is unlikely, especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus, dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of "called the Christ" to Jesus' name (Iesous ton legomenon Christon) in verse 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called "Jesus" (Iesous ton Barabbas). Otherwise, a mere "Jesus" would have been sufficient to distinguish the two.
Historicity
There is no evidence independent of Mark that it was ever the custom at feasts for the Romans to release a prisoner requested by the Jews, or any other subject people. No other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. Conversely, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice would make no sense, and releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale.
Were Barabbas and Jesus the same person?
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In the gospels, Jesus refers to himself as "son of God" several times, and thus "bar-Abb" could actually be a reference to Jesus himself as "son of the father". "Bar-Abb" could also be a polite way to refer to a boy whose father's name was not known, though no contemporary usage of this kind has been identified.
Hyam Maccoby and some other scholars have averred that Jesus was known as "bar-Abba", because of his custom of addressing God as 'Abba' in prayer, and referring to God as Abba in his preaching. It follows that when the Jewish crowd clamored before Pontius Pilate to "free Bar Abba" they could have meant Jesus. Anti-Semitic elements in the Christian church, the argument goes, altered the narrative to make it appear that the demand was for the freedom of somebody else (a brigand or insurrectionist) named "Barabbas". This was, the theory goes, part of the tendency to shift the blame for the Crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the Romans.
Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua (the Sayings of Jesus) agrees completely with Maccoby and others who aver that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. However, Urrutia opposes the notion that Jesus may have either led or planned a violent insurrection. Jesus was a strong advocate of "turning the other cheek" - which means not submission but strong and courageous, though nonviolent, defiance and resistance. Jesus, in this view, must have been the planner and leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pilate's plan to set up Roman Eagle standards on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The story of this successful resistance is told by Josephus " who, curiously, does not say who was the leader, but does tell of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus just two paragraphs later in a passage whose authenticity is heavily disputed. (See article Josephus on Jesus, in particular the section "Arabic Version.")
A less purposely anti-Semitic interpretation is that the story derives from the Jewish crowd (many of whom may have been among those who had hailed Jesus as a king perhaps less than a week earlier) calling out for the freedom of the man who (somewhat unusually for that era) referred to God as "father" and referred to himself as "son-of the father" (bar-Abba in Aramaic) " namely, Jesus himself. Pilate refused their pleas (and likely would have been disciplined by his superiors in Rome, if he did not punish both insurrectionists and those who claimed to be king of the Jews). Later, when people who did not understand Aramaic retold the story, they still included the petition for freedom, but bar-Abbas became a separate person - incidentally thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so.
Further interpretations along these same lines raise questions about how much difference there was between Jesus and an insurrectionist. In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. Soon afterwards and just shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords " and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane. Pilate would be reprimanded for releasing even a peaceful man who had others calling anyone but Caesar the "king of the Jews", no less one whose methods appeared to include violence.
Arthur Drew, a German Hegelian philosopher, in his books Christ Myth (1924) and Legend of Peter (1924), argued that first century Christianity was a social ethical movement which needed no founder to explain its rise. A long standing feature of the Semitic world was an annual sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" " Barabbas, originally called Jesus Barabbas. This may account for the myth that a historical person, Jesus, actually lived. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned, so Drew's theory would seem to require at least some further explanation.
A possible parable?
This "practice" of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable. An interpretation, using modern Reader Response theory, suggests no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened at all, and that the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus is a parable meant to draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel into the narrative so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father.
A critical analysis of possibly fictive elements in Mark's series of ironic parallels, and a comparison with Homer's contest between the beggars for the approval of the suitors in the Odyssey, is laid out in detail in Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark[1] (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_ ... abbas.html).
See also
Barabbas (movie): the 1962 epic starring Anthony Quinn
External links
John Dominic Crossan, "Crowd control": (http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=2974) identity, purpose and size of "the crowd" in Mark and its adapted purposes in Luke and John, on the occasion of the Mel Gibson film of 2004.
More on the interpretation that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.html)
The Absurd Life: Jesus & Barabbas (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... bsurd.html)
3- Conclusion:
As we clearly see above, and in the light of the early Disciples' writings above, it is quite possible that Jesus Barabbas (Jesus the son of the Father) was the one who got crucified by the Romans in the place Jesus of Nazareth, since:
1- Jesus Barabbas was anti-Romans and wanted to free the Jews from the Romans.
2- The Emperor pardoned one of the Jesuses from execution/crucifixion, which perfectly seems to suggest that the Jesus of Nazareth was the one who was pardoned/released.
3- The Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of John, the great Seth, and the Noble Quran all claim that a 'substitute' was put in the place of Jesus of Nazareth for execution.
There is no question to me that Jesus of Nazareth never got crucified on the cross! Again, please visit the main section of the early Disciples' writings for further proofs and details:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac24.htm#links
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #63
These words are not explaining he was dead. its your interpretation , find something good enough to support your claimgoat wrote:24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"TrueReligion wrote:Thn show the words here, with full context. Its not an evidence, its your statement only, which does;nt mean anythinggoat wrote:Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.TrueReligion wrote:
What you mean that Paul had close encounter with Paul after Jesus?
Where is writen that Jesus rose from dead? no diciple testify it my dear, Even Jesus didnt said that. any words from Jesus he was dead and came back from dead?
That just shows that the Christian Gospels have jesus being crucified and coming back,and the Quran does not. Why would you think that the Quran and the New Testament agree on anything?
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #64
Its quite simple actually, Allah teached muslims how to make prayers, not a big problem in this:)van wrote:I am suprised that you don't recognize that verse from the first chapter of the Quran. Is english your native language? If not let us know what you speak I can link to Bible verses in your language.
Are we showing allah the straight way?Even the Quran uses such technigue in the first chapter- Show us the straight way, doesn't allah know the straight way? Isn't this allah speaking?
Your reasoning with the John verse used to examine the Quran makes someone else other then allah the author of the Quran.
Christians believe in One True GOD, always have. It is our concept of who GOD is that is different and makes muslims think we need to have our necks smited!
Further. we are discussing about Jesus crucifiction here, so talk relevantly please.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #65
That was not what was asked. What was asked for was words he said after he was 'risen'. That was provided.TrueReligion wrote:These words are not explaining he was dead. its your interpretation , find something good enough to support your claimgoat wrote:24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"TrueReligion wrote:Thn show the words here, with full context. Its not an evidence, its your statement only, which does;nt mean anythinggoat wrote:Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.TrueReligion wrote:
What you mean that Paul had close encounter with Paul after Jesus?
Where is writen that Jesus rose from dead? no diciple testify it my dear, Even Jesus didnt said that. any words from Jesus he was dead and came back from dead?
That just shows that the Christian Gospels have jesus being crucified and coming back,and the Quran does not. Why would you think that the Quran and the New Testament agree on anything?
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Do you want to move the goal posts further? It really is pointless..since Christainity is not Islam and vis versa...but it can be done.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #66
What does the topic say? read the topic subject, its not asking for rising of Jesus, its asking for Jesus crucification, means was Jesus dead or no. you idnt provide that evidence.goat wrote:That was not what was asked. What was asked for was words he said after he was 'risen'. That was provided.TrueReligion wrote:These words are not explaining he was dead. its your interpretation , find something good enough to support your claimgoat wrote:24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"TrueReligion wrote:Thn show the words here, with full context. Its not an evidence, its your statement only, which does;nt mean anythinggoat wrote:Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.TrueReligion wrote:
What you mean that Paul had close encounter with Paul after Jesus?
Where is writen that Jesus rose from dead? no diciple testify it my dear, Even Jesus didnt said that. any words from Jesus he was dead and came back from dead?
That just shows that the Christian Gospels have jesus being crucified and coming back,and the Quran does not. Why would you think that the Quran and the New Testament agree on anything?
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Do you want to move the goal posts further? It really is pointless..since Christainity is not Islam and vis versa...but it can be done.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #67
Actually.. No.. it was asking if in the Islamic texts if there was the claim he was not crucified. That challenge has been shown to be true, that in the Islamic texts, he was not crucified.TrueReligion wrote:
What does the topic say? read the topic subject, its not asking for rising of Jesus, its asking for Jesus crucification, means was Jesus dead or no. you idnt provide that evidence.
However There is matthew
27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. (27:44) "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
Did both thieves revile Jesus?
(27:45, 51-53)
When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels.
(27:46)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
What were the last words of Jesus?
Is Jesus God?
27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
27:49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mark
15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. (15:37-38) "The veil of the temple was rent."
When did the Temple curtain rip?
15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.<
John
19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #68
Well done, uve provided enough verses, but none of them can claim to be true,as all those who wrote these gospels, were not present there, and the authors of these gospels are unknown.goat wrote:Actually.. No.. it was asking if in the Islamic texts if there was the claim he was not crucified. That challenge has been shown to be true, that in the Islamic texts, he was not crucified.TrueReligion wrote:
What does the topic say? read the topic subject, its not asking for rising of Jesus, its asking for Jesus crucification, means was Jesus dead or no. you idnt provide that evidence.
However There is matthew
27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. (27:44) "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
Did both thieves revile Jesus?
(27:45, 51-53)
When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels.
(27:46)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
What were the last words of Jesus?
Is Jesus God?
27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
27:49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mark
15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. (15:37-38) "The veil of the temple was rent."
When did the Temple curtain rip?
15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.<
John
19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
They gave these stories as they heard from traditions, others were just writen long time after . no perfect evidence was found for the athority of Crucifiction.
Now,tell me, how many people went to tomb on sunday morning? the gospels make diferent accounts, Mary was ofcourse there, but y did she went there?historians say to annoint Jesus, but do Jews annoint a dead body?
When Jesus came to the room of diciples, y did they diciples got scared?Why Mary didnt got scared when he met Jesus outside tomb?
Last question, was Jesus hands nailed to the cross or tied?
-
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
- Sage
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: Kefitzat Haderech
Post #69
In surah al"Maidah (5):117, Jesus speaks to allah. Usual translations Ive read have him saying to god: I was their witness while I remained among them; but when you took me up yadda yadda.
The original Arabic, however, says something different. Looking up the root word in the Qurnic dictionary, I found that the Arabi supports a different interpretation:
The usual translation goes along the lines of: When you took me up to you, you were the watcher over them. Except that the word means to reach the end (according to the dictionary I mentioned) and most of the entries consist of variants along the lines of caused to die.
An Arabic friend of mine had this to say on the subject: tawafa can mean to cause to die (actually it's most common meaning in modern arabic is to die and the 3rd form of the same verb Waffa means to cause to die). The translations that say "Took me up" are using poetic license/tafseer. The literal meaning is to die/cause to die.
So, in fact, the Qurnic Jesus actually says to allah: When you caused me to die, which supports the fact that he did end up crucified. Or killed, at least. Yet people keep interpreting this ayat along the lines of the traditional myth of ascendance.
The original Arabic, however, says something different. Looking up the root word in the Qurnic dictionary, I found that the Arabi supports a different interpretation:
The usual translation goes along the lines of: When you took me up to you, you were the watcher over them. Except that the word means to reach the end (according to the dictionary I mentioned) and most of the entries consist of variants along the lines of caused to die.
An Arabic friend of mine had this to say on the subject: tawafa can mean to cause to die (actually it's most common meaning in modern arabic is to die and the 3rd form of the same verb Waffa means to cause to die). The translations that say "Took me up" are using poetic license/tafseer. The literal meaning is to die/cause to die.
So, in fact, the Qurnic Jesus actually says to allah: When you caused me to die, which supports the fact that he did end up crucified. Or killed, at least. Yet people keep interpreting this ayat along the lines of the traditional myth of ascendance.
لا إلـــــــــــــــــــــــــــه
-
TrueReligion
- Banned
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 am
Post #70
hmm, seem some old friend here using same site with wrong translation as used by christians,Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:In surah al"Maidah (5):117, Jesus speaks to allah. Usual translations Ive read have him saying to god: I was their witness while I remained among them; but when you took me up yadda yadda.
The original Arabic, however, says something different. Looking up the root word in the Qurnic dictionary, I found that the Arabi supports a different interpretation:
The usual translation goes along the lines of: When you took me up to you, you were the watcher over them. Except that the word means to reach the end (according to the dictionary I mentioned) and most of the entries consist of variants along the lines of caused to die.
An Arabic friend of mine had this to say on the subject: tawafa can mean to cause to die (actually it's most common meaning in modern arabic is to die and the 3rd form of the same verb Waffa means to cause to die). The translations that say "Took me up" are using poetic license/tafseer. The literal meaning is to die/cause to die.
So, in fact, the Qurnic Jesus actually says to allah: When you caused me to die, which supports the fact that he did end up crucified. Or killed, at least. Yet people keep interpreting this ayat along the lines of the traditional myth of ascendance.
this is already rejected as its not from valid source,. wrong translation my friend,
bring correct one, there are many native arabs here as well
