Islam says Jesus was not crucified

[cholland]

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?

[TrueReligion]

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?

Just like denying the Holocost ever happened, this one claim by Muhammad is an abomination to God on MANY levels. He demanded that all people worshop him and no one else. He is the false prophet, and the antichrist.

We are discussing about Jesus crucifixtion here, not about Muhammad's life, so please be on topic, and provide your evidence as from BBible that Jesus was crucified.

[Wyvern]

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?

Just like denying the Holocost ever happened, this one claim by Muhammad is an abomination to God on MANY levels. He demanded that all people worshop him and no one else. He is the false prophet, and the antichrist.

If you are christian and actually believe Mohammed was the antichrist you should reread revelations and try to explain why we are still here or why no history text mentions people rising from the grave and then going to heaven or Jesus ruling for a thousand years for that matter.

[van]

I am surprised a muslim is asking for Biblical references to the crucifixion of Jesus of course it is a part of the Gospel, you can pick up any New Testament and read it for yourself.

I know in Islamic majority countries muslims are not allowed to have a Holy Bible, is this the case? Are you allowed to read the Holy Bible?

It is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified.

http://www.introducingjesus.org/inj005manmyth.htm

CORNELIUS TACITUS was a Roman historian born in about 53 AD. Writing in his 'Annals' (c. 110 AD) about the reign of Nero, he describes how Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome. He states that "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

JUSTIN MARTYR (about AD 150) addressed his 'Defence of Christianity' to the Emperor Antonius Pius and in it describes Jesus' crucifixion, how he was nailed to the cross and how his clothes were divided among the soldiers by casting lots. He also refers the Emperor to "the 'Acts' which were recorded by Pontius Pilate", these being Pilate's own report of the crucifixion which Justin supposed the Emperor had access to.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (c. 120-180 AD) who lived in the second century was scornful of Christ but described how he "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine" because of it. So even those who opposed Christianity accepted the reality of Jesus and some basic facts about his life and death.

MARA BAR-SERAPION, around AD 73, wrote to his son a letter which is now in the British Museum. In it he refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

PHLEGON was a first century historian whose 'Chronicles' have now been lost, but like Thallus (see below) is quoted by other early writers. Also like Thallus he mentions the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus saying that "an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon".

THULLUS was one of the first Gentile historians to mention Christ. His writings have disappeared but we know of them from the writing of others, such as Julius Africanus (about AD 221) who quotes from Thullas. One of his quotes includes reference to the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion and suggests that a total eclipse was the cause. Julius points out in his writing the impossibility of this since the festival of Passover, when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon (eclipses only occur at a new moon).

[Goat]

I am surprised a muslim is asking for Biblical references to the crucifixion of Jesus of course it is a part of the Gospel, you can pick up any New Testament and read it for yourself.

I know in Islamic majority countries muslims are not allowed to have a Holy Bible, is this the case? Are you allowed to read the Holy Bible?

It is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified.

http://www.introducingjesus.org/inj005manmyth.htm

CORNELIUS TACITUS was a Roman historian born in about 53 AD. Writing in his 'Annals' (c. 110 AD) about the reign of Nero, he describes how Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome. He states that "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

JUSTIN MARTYR (about AD 150) addressed his 'Defence of Christianity' to the Emperor Antonius Pius and in it describes Jesus' crucifixion, how he was nailed to the cross and how his clothes were divided among the soldiers by casting lots. He also refers the Emperor to "the 'Acts' which were recorded by Pontius Pilate", these being Pilate's own report of the crucifixion which Justin supposed the Emperor had access to.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (c. 120-180 AD) who lived in the second century was scornful of Christ but described how he "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine" because of it. So even those who opposed Christianity accepted the reality of Jesus and some basic facts about his life and death.

MARA BAR-SERAPION, around AD 73, wrote to his son a letter which is now in the British Museum. In it he refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

PHLEGON was a first century historian whose 'Chronicles' have now been lost, but like Thallus (see below) is quoted by other early writers. Also like Thallus he mentions the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus saying that "an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon".

THULLUS was one of the first Gentile historians to mention Christ. His writings have disappeared but we know of them from the writing of others, such as Julius Africanus (about AD 221) who quotes from Thullas. One of his quotes includes reference to the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion and suggests that a total eclipse was the cause. Julius points out in his writing the impossibility of this since the festival of Passover, when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon (eclipses only occur at a new moon).

Well.. no. Those are not references that Jesus was crucified. We don't even HAVE any writing of Thallus, but we do know he was born in 54 ad.. and africanus was trying to discount thallus saying the 'darkness at noon' was an eclipse. We do not have any of Thallus' orginal work, so we don't know what he said.

So far, all your sources either do not mention Jesus at all (MARA BAR-SERAPION, for example , only uses the term 'wise king') , or they got their information from Christian sources.

So, your claims are .. well exaggerated at the very best.

[TrueReligion]

I am surprised a muslim is asking for Biblical references to the crucifixion of Jesus of course it is a part of the Gospel, you can pick up any New Testament and read it for yourself.

I know in Islamic majority countries muslims are not allowed to have a Holy Bible, is this the case? Are you allowed to read the Holy Bible?

It is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified.

http://www.introducingjesus.org/inj005manmyth.htm

CORNELIUS TACITUS was a Roman historian born in about 53 AD. Writing in his 'Annals' (c. 110 AD) about the reign of Nero, he describes how Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome. He states that "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

JUSTIN MARTYR (about AD 150) addressed his 'Defence of Christianity' to the Emperor Antonius Pius and in it describes Jesus' crucifixion, how he was nailed to the cross and how his clothes were divided among the soldiers by casting lots. He also refers the Emperor to "the 'Acts' which were recorded by Pontius Pilate", these being Pilate's own report of the crucifixion which Justin supposed the Emperor had access to.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (c. 120-180 AD) who lived in the second century was scornful of Christ but described how he "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine" because of it. So even those who opposed Christianity accepted the reality of Jesus and some basic facts about his life and death.

MARA BAR-SERAPION, around AD 73, wrote to his son a letter which is now in the British Museum. In it he refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

PHLEGON was a first century historian whose 'Chronicles' have now been lost, but like Thallus (see below) is quoted by other early writers. Also like Thallus he mentions the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus saying that "an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon".

THULLUS was one of the first Gentile historians to mention Christ. His writings have disappeared but we know of them from the writing of others, such as Julius Africanus (about AD 221) who quotes from Thullas. One of his quotes includes reference to the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion and suggests that a total eclipse was the cause. Julius points out in his writing the impossibility of this since the festival of Passover, when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon (eclipses only occur at a new moon).

I'am sorry Van, but nowhere in NT and OT is mentioned clearly that Jesus was crucified. No diciple noticed as eye witness of the incident, all is what they hear,
and no diciple wrote any gospel, which is a known fact. Besides there are clear evidences from bible that Jesus was not crucified.

For Muslims reading bible, nowhere in any Islamic country is not allowed to read bible, all muslims can read bible, they dont need permision from any1, unline christians who need permision to read bible from church preist etc etc.

Also muslims believe in all the books send by God, e.g Torah, Psalams, Evangle (Gospel of Jesus) and Quran. but the current bible contains hardly 5% of true Jesus words, rest isall writen by unknown authors with lots of errors and contradictions.

[Goat]

I'am sorry Van, but nowhere in NT and OT is mentioned clearly that Jesus was crucified. No diciple noticed as eye witness of the incident, all is what they hear,
and no diciple wrote any gospel, which is a known fact. Besides there are clear evidences from bible that Jesus was not crucified.

For Muslims reading bible, nowhere in any Islamic country is not allowed to read bible, all muslims can read bible, they dont need permision from any1, unline christians who need permision to read bible from church preist etc etc.

Also muslims believe in all the books send by God, e.g Torah, Psalams, Evangle (Gospel of Jesus) and Quran. but the current bible contains hardly 5% of true Jesus words, rest isall writen by unknown authors with lots of errors and contradictions.

Now, that is a big load of ignorence right then and there.

While the OT does not mention Jesus at all, the Gospels very graphically describe him being crucified.

[van]

Well my kids did not live during the time when Kennedy was shot but they know for a fact that he was.

Eye witnesses spoke to historians who pride themselves on accuracy and this is the case of those that were historians at the time of Jesus. These were not all Christian historians but Roman and Jewish.

How does this not identify Jesus? CORNELIUS TACITUS -"The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

Who else but Jesus did as Lucian wrote-"introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine"

Not only does the Gospel say Jesus was crucified Apocrypha does also. There is also the Barnabas Epistle-not to be confused with the fake Barnabas Gospel.

All the following mention the crucifixion:

Clement of Rome First Epistle circa 66 AD
Polycarp
Ignatius (107 AD). Epistle to the Trallians 9 - Epistle to the Smyrnaens 1

Actually no where in the quran does it say that Jesus was not crucified-all it says is that the Jews did not do it. You could say it was the Romans that did.

Why do muslims take such offense to the thought of Jesus being killed? Supposedly it isn't the first time a prophet was killed:
3.181 Allah hath heard the taunt of those who say: "Truly, Allah is indigent and we are rich!"- We shall certainly record their word and of slaying the prophets in defiance of right, and We shall say: "Taste ye the penalty of the Scorching Fire!

I say we all crucified Jesus because of our sin. GOD allowed the crucifixion-it was HIS plan. GOD crucified Jesus for us- the final sacrifice.

[Goat]

Well my kids did not live during the time when Kennedy was shot but they know for a fact that he was.

Eye witnesses spoke to historians who pride themselves on accuracy and this is the case of those that were historians at the time of Jesus. These were not all Christian historians but Roman and Jewish.

How does this not identify Jesus? CORNELIUS TACITUS -"The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

And where did he get his information from? Since the term 'Christ' was not used in the lifetime of Jesus, and Christ was Greek translation of a title , that means Tacitus either got the information from Christians, or it is an inserted later (which there is some evidence for). This is not independent verification of the existence of Jesus, since there is no evidence that is not in the Gospels, and the term 'CHrist' was only used by Christians.

[/quote]

Who else but Jesus did as Lucian wrote-"introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine"
[/quote]

Well, Lucian reported the beliefs of Christians, but that does not provide any independent verification of Jesus. Lucian was writing a piece of satire in about 170 c.e.. and therefore can attest to the existence of Christians and their beliefs, not
if there was an actual historical Jesus.

Not only does the Gospel say Jesus was crucified Apocrypha does also. There is also the Barnabas Epistle-not to be confused with the fake Barnabas Gospel.

This I will agree with. The Christian scripture clearly states Jesus was crucified.

All the following mention the crucifixion:

Clement of Rome First Epistle circa 66 AD
Polycarp
Ignatius (107 AD). Epistle to the Trallians 9 - Epistle to the Smyrnaens 1

1 Clement was written between 80 and 140 c.e... but yes.. it mentions the crucifiction.

Polycarp was writing between 110 and 140 c.e... but yes. he believed in a crucifiction.

[TrueReligion]

Well my kids did not live during the time when Kennedy was shot but they know for a fact that he was.

Eye witnesses spoke to historians who pride themselves on accuracy and this is the case of those that were historians at the time of Jesus. These were not all Christian historians but Roman and Jewish.

Which eye witness spoke to any historian? The Jewish Rabi's were also not sure if he was dead or not, and they requested Pilate that they want to re-check. ALSO nowhere did Jesus said he is goind to die for sin of mankind, thn it just came by chance through Judah? so you should appreciate Judah, and not to treat him as a traitor , right? God plans everything for future, but in this , seems God's plan failed? or changed?

How does this not identify Jesus? CORNELIUS TACITUS -"The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

Who else but Jesus did as Lucian wrote-"introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine"

They wrote on behalf of christians story, but no1 noticed the incident themself.

Not only does the Gospel say Jesus was crucified Apocrypha does also. There is also the Barnabas Epistle-not to be confused with the fake Barnabas Gospel.

And who wrote the gospel of NT? Any of the diciple of Jesus?
All the following mention the crucifixion:

Clement of Rome First Epistle circa 66 AD
Polycarp
Ignatius (107 AD). Epistle to the Trallians 9 - Epistle to the Smyrnaens 1

Status of Clement Letter:
The main point of dispute regarding the originality of the present gospels is the lack
of an uninterrupted continuity in transmission of the reporting authorities of any of the
gospels. There is no evidence that any of the gospels have come down to us direct from
Jesus through his disciples to the subsequent recipients so as to form a continuous chain
of reliable reporters. To say it more simply, there should be a reliable record of a
recognised disciple of Jesus bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him
by Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such names. Then the next
reporter should bear witness to having received, heard or been told the same statement by
that particular disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one or
more of those present should have conveyed the same text to others by the same
procedure so that the texts would have been conveyed to us with an uninterrupted chain of
reporters traceable directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Qura’anic
revelation).
Now we say, and without any fear of being wrong, that the Christians do not
possess any such succession of authorities from the authors of the gospels to the end of
the second century or the beginning of the third century AD. We, ourselves, have dug into
their books to find any trace of such proofs, and also sought guidance from renowned
Christian scholars but could not get anywhere.
The priest, French,34 during our public polemic with him, tried to explain this away
by saying that we do not have any such authorities due to the historical calamities which
34 Our author had a famous public polemic with a priest named Fonder in India. French was appointed as an
assistant to Fonder. The assistant of the author was Dr.. Vazir Khan. (Taqi)
139
befell the Christians during the first three centuries. It is, therefore, not correct to say that
the priest Clement and Ignatius had no such authority with them in their time. We do not
necessarily refute the conjectures and suppositions by which they ascribe these writings to
their authors. What we are trying to say is that these suppositions and conjectures cannot
be accepted as an argument for the genuineness of the Word of God. Neither do we deny
the fact that the present gospels gained popularity towards the end of the second century
or at the beginning of the third century, with all their faults, errors, and contradictions.
We must be allowed to bring to light some facts regarding Clement and Ignatius to
eliminate any misapprehensions.
The Source of Clement's Letter
Clement, the Patriarch of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the church of
Corinth. There is a disagreement between the scholars regarding the exact year that this
letter was written. Canterbury puts it between 64 and 70 AD. Leclerc claimed it to have
been written in 69 AD, while Duchesne and Tillemont have said that Clement did not
become Pope until 91 or 93 A.D. How Clement could have written letters to the church in
64 or 70 AD when he was not yet Pope is not explained. However, setting aside all the
differences, the letter in question could have not been written later than 96 AD. Some
sentences of this letter, however, happen to be identical to some of the sentences in one of
the four gospels. This allowed the Christians to claim that Clement had copied those
sentences from the gospel.
This claim is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
Firstly, it is not sufficient to copy only some sentences from a gospel. If this were
the case the claim of those people would be true who are considered heretics35 by the
Protestants because they have claimed that all the moral teachings contained in the
gospels have been borrowed from the pagans and other philosophers (because some of
their ideas were identical to some of the ideas of the gospels). The author of Aksihumo
said: The moral teachings of the Evangel, of which the Christians are very proud, have
been copied word for word from the Book of Ethics of Confucius,36 who lived in the sixth
century BC. For example he said under his moral no. 24: “Behave towards others as you
35 The Rationalists who strongly favour liberalism.
36 Confucius, (551 or 552-479 BC), great moral philosopher of China , who had strong influence on the
religion and general character of the Chinese. The past Chinese ideology was thus called Confucianism.
140
want to be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this is the root of
all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your enemy because to do so would be
absurd since his life is controlled by God.� Moral no. 53 goes: “It is quite possible for us to
overlook our enemy without revenging him. Our natural thoughts are not always had.�
Similar good advice can be found in the books of Indian and Greek philosophers.
Secondly, if Clement really had copied it from the gospel, all its contents would
have been identical to the gospel, but such is not the case. On the contrary, he differed
from the gospel in many places, showing that he had not copied what he wrote from the
gospels. Even if it were proved that he had copied from a gospel, it might have been from
any of the many gospels which were current in his time, as Eichhorn admitted in respect of
the sentence spoken by a heavenly voice at the time of the descension of the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Clement was one of the followers of the disciples and his knowledge about
Christ was no way less than that of Mark and Luke, which allows us to believe, and
logically so, that he might have written the letter from reports received by himself directly. If
there were an indication anywhere in his writing that he had copied it from any of the
gospels, our claim would certainly have been out of place.
We quote below three passages from his letter.
The First Passage of Clement's Letter
“He who loves Jesus should follow his commandment�. Jones claimed that Clement
copied this sentence from John 14:15 which reads: If ye love me, keep my
commandments. The apparent similarity between these two statements led Mr. Jones to
suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However, he has chosen to overlook the
clear textual difference between these two statements. The falsity of this claim has already
been proved by our showing that the letter could not have been written after 96 AD, while,
according to their own findings, the Gospel of John was written in 98 AD. It is nothing but a
desperate effort to provide some authenticity to the present gospels.
Horne said on page 307, Vol. 4 of his commentaries printed 1824: According to
Chrysostom and Epiphanius, the early scholars and according to Dr. Mill, Fabricius,
Leclerc and Bishop Tomline, John wrote his gospel in 97 AD, while Mr. Jones situates this
gospel in 98 AD. However, a true lover always follows what his love commands, otherwise
he would not be a lover in the true sense of the word.
141
Lardner justly said in his Commentaries printed 1827 on Page 40 of Vol., 2: I
understand that the copying of this letter from the gospel is doubtful, because Clement was
fully aware of the fact that any claim to the love of Christ necessitated practical obedience
to his commandments, because Clement had been in the company of the disciples of
Jesus.
The Second Passage of Clement's Letter
It appears in chapter thirteen of this letter: We follow what is written, because the
Holy Spirit has said that a wise man is never proud of his wisdom. And we should keep in
mind the words of Christ who said at the time of preaching patience and practice: “Be ye
merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the
same as you will act upon others, as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged
as you will judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and with the
same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to You again.�
The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement from Luke 6:36-38
and Matt. 7: 1,2,12.
The passage from the Luke is this: Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is
merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be
condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good
measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your
bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you mete.
The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again. And in verse 12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
The Third Passage of Clement's Letter
Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage: Remember the words of Lord
Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for
him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever
142
shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew
26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses below:
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the
Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Matthew
18:6 contains the following lines: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which
believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that
he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 reads: “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe
in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast
into the sea.�
The text of Luke 17:2 is this: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged
about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little
ones.�
Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above texts of the gospels,
Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that: The above two
passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to
them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however,
stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels
had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the
related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally
consistent and similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions are met.
Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been copied from the gospel.
It is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to
him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the companion of the disciples
just as Luke was.
In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two passages:
When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the
other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the
teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear
143
reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written
statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings
which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apostles and their followers. Leclerc
preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the latter.
If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that
case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may
not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this
man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels.
It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without
referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases,
the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the
second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the.
Gospels were so widely known that the Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge
of them.
Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words
consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful
preservation, though there we have a difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with
the opinion of leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words: ’And to
remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to
receive.’
It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement
from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in
the knowledge of others. This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but
this method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp also used this
method in his writings. We are quite sure that he also copied from the written gospels.
It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement
really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is only based on
conjecture.
We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both case the truth of the
present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As
the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they
144
might have done the same in other places too, and they might have not recorded the exact
words used.
Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular
sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the
contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain
statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the
case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some
sentences of Clement bear some similarity with them.
We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the
method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like
Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His
copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on the other hand, possible
that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ.

Actually no where in the quran does it say that Jesus was not crucified-all it says is that the Jews did not do it. You could say it was the Romans that did.

In Quran, its clearly writen that Jesus was not crucified. READ 4:157 from Quran.

Why do muslims take such offense to the thought of Jesus being killed? Supposedly it isn't the first time a prophet was killed:
3.181 Allah hath heard the taunt of those who say: "Truly, Allah is indigent and we are rich!"- We shall certainly record their word and of slaying the prophets in defiance of right, and We shall say: "Taste ye the penalty of the Scorching Fire!

You are making contradiction of your faith here, as you call Jesus as prophet, which Muslims belief, but christians dont believe:)
2ndly, the main problem between Muslims and christians is that, the trinity and divinity of Jesus, as Jesus never claim DIVINITY, neither he call himsef God or to worship him.

I say we all crucified Jesus because of our sin. GOD allowed the crucifixion-it was HIS plan. GOD crucified Jesus for us- the final sacrifice.

Where id Jesus said he will die for our sin? where did God said he will let Jesus die for our sin? y God wil kil his prophet for mankind sin? does it make any logic?

[van]

Luke

Acts 11
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.