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?

[van]

Think about it wouldn't a roman soldier's livelihood and life would depend on the fact that a person they sent out to crucified had been in fact crucified.

John 19
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

Please read John 10 pay close attention to:
John 10
14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

[TrueReligion]

Think about it wouldn't a roman soldier's livelihood and life would depend on the fact that a person they sent out to crucified had been in fact crucified.

John 19
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

Please read John 10 pay close attention to:
John 10
14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

The Inauthenticity of The Gospel Of John
There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John is the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several arguments that strongly refute this claim.
The First Argument. Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of
writing and the method of compiling books were similar to the style of the present Muslim writers. It does not appear from this Gospel that John was making his own statements. It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers unless strong arguments are presented to negate it.
The Second Argument. This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24: ``This is
the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true,``describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by John and has described the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions to the contents.
The Third Argument. In the second century AD when the authorities refused to
accept this Gospel as the book of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John, was living. He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the truth that he heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound things which he related but did not hear a single word about a matter of such importance. And it is even more unbelievable that he had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verbal statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal
statements: “I Listened to these words with great care by the grace of God and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them.� It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not state it for the fear of his enemies. This argument also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christian. Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change of or distortion changed
the contents of the text. Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly
announced in 4th century AD: “It has been established that the book of the New Testament are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends.�
The Fourth Argument. The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by student of scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.
The Fifth Argument. Bertshiender, a great scholar said: “The whole of this Gospel
and all the Epistles of John were definitely not written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D.�
The Sixth Argument. Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus.�
The Seventh Argument. The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD,disowned this Gospel and all the writing of John.
The Eighth Argument. The fist eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the Syriac version. If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writer would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.
The Ninth Argument. Horne in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says: “The
information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose not help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A long period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.� Further in the same volume he says: The first Gospel was written either in 73 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in
48 A.D. or in 61, 62, 63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possible in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68, 69, 70 or in 89 or 98 A.D.�

So John can;t be taken as authentic gospel, so your claim is rejected my friend

[van]

How can John be an example of Muslim writing when we have a small fragment from 100 AD and very posibly 90 AD?

http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/200 ... l-of-john/

You are believing someone from the 4th century over someone that had a close encounter with Jesus?

Paul ca 5 - 67 AD referenced Scripture, Gospel in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

[TrueReligion]

How can John be an example of Muslim writing when we have a small fragment from 100 AD and very posibly 90 AD?

http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/200 ... l-of-john/

You are believing someone from the 4th century over someone that had a close encounter with Jesus?

Paul ca 5 - 67 AD referenced Scripture, Gospel in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

The passage indicates, that the style of writing of aramaicc, hebrew and arabic was somewhat similar, which is contradicting in John Gospel, it doesnt say that its arabic in writen.

Who has close encounter with Jesus? you think that John the bapptist wrote the gospel of John? or John son of Zebedeee wrote the Gospel?

Who wrote this? Jesus? any of diciple? who was the 12 diciple? Judah died right? so its all humman mind game, and no truth behind this in real which happen..
Further its all admited by christian scholars and historians, no one is accepting Gospel of John as correct, and later on some church addded it, but its not evenn acepted by many scholars in this time.

[van]

The First Argument. Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the method of compiling books were similar to the style of the present Muslim writers.

I said: How can John be an example of Muslim writing when we have a small fragment from 100 AD and very posibly 90 AD?

Why is John speaking about himmself in such a way?

21:24: ``This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true,``

Paul wrote similarly about himself in the opening of ! Corinthians.

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?

Why can't Jesus be a prophet? HE is SON of GOD and a son of Mary and Joseph, Teacher, GOD's WORD incarnate, a manifestation of the One True GOD.

You really should read the Gospel if you are going to argue against it. Paul had the close encounter with Paul after Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

[TrueReligion]

The First Argument. Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the method of compiling books were similar to the style of the present Muslim writers.

I said: How can John be an example of Muslim writing when we have a small fragment from 100 AD and very posibly 90 AD?

Which john you are talking about who wrote the Gospel? if you are believing that John the baptist or John the son of Zebedee wrote it, you are living in a big dream. ask any christian scholar, he will tel youclearly.
My sources are all from christian scholars and historians, you mean to say they are wrong and you are right?

Why is John speaking about himmself in such a way?

21:24: ``This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true,``

This chapter is already rejected by almost all named and learned christian scholars, only church want to keep it, for getting money from some blind faith christians
This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It
leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by John and has described
the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions to the contents.


Paul wrote similarly about himself in the opening of ! Corinthians.

Paul is the founder of christianity or Jesus?

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?

Are we speaking Quran here or Bible?

Why can't Jesus be a prophet? HE is SON of GOD and a son of Mary and Joseph, Teacher, GOD's WORD incarnate, a manifestation of the One True GOD.

Any words of Jesus where he said all these things?
But christians believe in 3 Gods, not 1 , right?

You really should read the Gospel if you are going to argue against it. Paul had the close encounter with Paul after Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

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?

[Goat]

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?

Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.

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?

[TrueReligion]

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?

Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.

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?

Thn show the words here, with full context. Its not an evidence, its your statement only, which does;nt mean anything

[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.

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.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

[Goat]

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?

Yes,there are claimed words from Jesus after he came back from the dead. The story of Doubting Thomas describes that encounter.

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?

Thn show the words here, with full context. Its not an evidence, its your statement only, which does;nt mean anything

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!"
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."