I had to ask this of myself. Especially since I started reading "Jesus Prophet of Islam" again. I won't go into much detail as to not offend my Trinitarian Christian readers, but the author goes into great depth in explaining how Jesus may not have been crucified. And the interesting part of it: This man's explanation made sense. It wasn't based on God magically switching Jesus or snatching him away at the last second, or barely based on God masking another person to look like Jesus. It made sense. And it made me wonder "what did I believe for that last 25 years?".
His book goes on to describe Paul's innovations to the Christian church. Let's just say I know where I stand 100% now. And its fascinating because it is exactly like what is happening in Islam and what happened to Islam after Muhammad passed. The Trinitarians destroyed (literally) all the Unitarians that came in their path. Much like some muslim groups are trying to destroy other muslim groups because they feel they are the "right path". Its so sad really. Especially since the muslim groups are much closer in belief than the Trinitarians and the Unitarians. And then of course the battle continued with the Catholics and the Protestants. So much death over debates of rules. Debates over the divinity of Jesus. This isn't what Jesus wanted. This isn't what Muhammad wanted. And the same thing happened to both religions: The minute the prophet died (or left the earth) men took over, made changes, and formed their own vendettas. I guess this sort of thing is human nature.
So then I reflect as to why I still choose to do Lent, why I want to go to Easter even though I am completely unclear as to what actually happened to Jesus. For one thing, I would feel horribly guilty if I decided that he was not crucified and he actually was. That I didn't recognize his suffering and thank him for it. But that seems more of a self preservation than a true belief.
So why then do I still want to do Lent?
Because I want to honor Jesus and the sacrifices he did make in his life time. Whether he died on the cross or not Jesus made a multitude of sacrifices so he could spread the word of God. And I want to use Lent to recognize him and thank him for all he did for mankind. Truly the greatest of hearts was sent to us to build a bridge between the first and the last.
So thank you Jesus, may God bless you and may you bring us all order on the last day.
Subhanallah
Posts
*"Truly the greatest of hearts was sent to us to build the bridge between the first and the last."* May I congratulate on your beautiful sentiment,and it comes from your heart,very nice.
ReplyDeleteVery intesrting thoughts. I support your goodwill and wisdom greatly.
ReplyDeleteI can't recall the name of the book, but it is written by an atheist on the historical Jesus. He bases his information from sources other than Christian scriptures and has done extensive research. There are other books as well on the historical Jesus and it is now a well-established fact that there was a man called Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate because he was a "public nuisance." Such scholars don't hold the Jews responsible for it. Now whether one treats Jesus as a divine messenger, or just any other prophet, or the son of God, history also bears witness that there was such a man and that he was crucified.
Therefore, a book like Jesus: Prophet of Islam makes me very sad. Sometimes it makes me angry too. It is unfair to try and twist history because it fits someone's idealogies and religious beliefs. I was also fairly amused when I read that book that no one pointed out the lack of knowledge of Christinity of the two authors. Just because one is called Thomson doesn't mean he knows anything about Christinity. For example, what really annoyed me was that the authors claim that the Gospel of Barnabas was written by the apostle Barnabas. It is a known fact that the author Barnabas is not the apostle Barnabas. Plus, have they even read the Gospel of Barnabas? It is farcical - there is an entire passage in which Jesus says that he is not even worth the shoelaces of Muhammad! Is it then odd that Christians find the text humiliating to Jesus?! I would have admired the work if they had tried to refute the claims of secular historians who have proven that Jesus was crucified rather than tear apart the gospels and show there is no validity for Paul's claims. I'm not a fan of Paul at all although I think he was just as sincere about what he believed in as those Muslims who broke into factions, but it is far easier to defend what you believe in which makes these two authors no better than the writers of the gosples.
Sorry about this long comment but I had always wanted to comment on the book and didn't see anything on it by anyone before. Their persistent use of 'supposed' crucifixion just boils my bood :D
BTW, I wonder what they think about the verse in the Quran that explicitly informs that Jesus was 'made to die' by Allah? Just wondering.
Achelois: I dunno but it sort of amazes me since the author spent most of his life researching...but perhaps he researched with blinders. He is a HUGE fan of the gospel Barnabas (Which i too was pretty sure wasn't written down exactly by the apostle Barnabas). But my understanding is most muslims are a fan of the gospel Barnabas because it agrees with the very literal interpretation of the Qur'an ( I think the less literal idea that oddly enough Sufis like, works better). I mean yes its a nice thought that maybe God spared Jesus from such pain but frankly its unlikely. Part of the reason the idea that Jesus died for our sins came about was to try and give reason to such a brutal death meaning the death had to have happened. Most muslims dont have a problem believing this because they aren't told the story of the crucifixion, they are simply told he didn't die. The 12 stages of the cross are horrific! And if this did happen to him I certainly want to recognize him and morn his pain.
ReplyDeleteNow the explanation for no crucifixion makes sense in this book but it still relies on God making people believe Judas appears to be Jesus. And that is when the explanation becomes iffy for me.
Yet at the same time its odd the that crucifixion is not mentioned in all 4 gospels.
Yes that line, see people don't read the whole thing! Even if you read the verses around the verse about Jesus not being crucified you can see its not as simple as he literally wasn't crucified. Then you have this verse which sort of supports the idea that he did die in this life.
Now I don't like Paul, at all. Haven't for a long time. But I think this author is very opinionated and is letting his personal opinions cloud his explanation of history. Yeah Paul had issues, I don't agree with his innovations at all. But Barnabas was not the greatest saint who ever lived and you would think he is when you read this book.
I now believe Jesus was crucified (I didn't believe that earlier), but I think it was all political. If it was religious he would have been stoned - the Jewish punishment. Romans never gave the body of the executed to the family for burial. It was kept in tombs (if the executed was Jewish) and returned to the family after a year (or six months, I can't recall). So I assume that is what happened - Jesus' body was buried by those who executed him and hence we have no records of his tomb/grave; we don't know what happened after the execution. I don't think it was as dramatic as it is made out to be; that doesn't mean it wasn't painful. There must have been others who were crucified in history some for religious reasons, perhaps all for their beliefs. It is a very painful way to die and that is why I am scared to undermine it even if it was caused by political reasons.
ReplyDeleteBut the Gospel of Barnabas is really odd. I have an e-copy if you want. I can email it to you. It is blatant forgery. There is a lot of weird stuff in it. But I don't think it was written by a Muslim either; I think it was written by someone trying to please Muslim rulers.
I also feel that the book Jesus: Prophet of Islam is so biased because it is too old - it was written the year I was born :D Haha! Internet has given rise to really unbiased views by Muslims - they are well-read and think and then write. I am no fan of Rashad Khalifa but he helped someone write a book on the crucifixion of Jesus and it is one Muslim opinion I thoroughly enjoyed reading. You can read it here: http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/jesus/contents.html (you will have to ignore Khalifa's mad mathematical equations on every other page, though!).
If you read it do tell me how you like it, please.
I've checked the original Greek reading of all the Gospels in the Bible, and Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:25, Luke 23:33 and John 19:18 all contain very explicit references to Jesus' crucifixion - in the first case, the formulation 'crucifying him...', in the other cases, 'they crucified him'. The grammatical antecedent for 'him', found in the immediately preceding verses, is Jesus. There is no other way to translate these references.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible itself (one of Peter's letters) talks about how Paul is sometimes difficult to understand, and many people twist his words. In other words, this problem existed even back in Biblical times and it was frankly acknowledged.
This is the thing: if one wants, one can prove almost anything from the Scriptures. This is why it is imperative to read all of the Bible before coming to a conclusion. Paul cannot be read in isolation from the rest of Scripture. What happens if we engage in proof-texting is that we can even end up making a verse say exactly the opposite of what it is revealed to mean if we read the whole Scripture first.
And I really do mean the whole Scripture. For many people think it suffices to read just the verses that directly treat a given topic, to find out what the Bible teaches about the matter.
This is not true. To give an example, people think it suffices to read all the verses that talk specifically about the role of women in order to come up with 'what the Bible teaches about women'. And we all know what they come up with when they do that. But when we read the rest of Scripture, which talks about what is expected of all people, regardless of gender, we get a very different picture indeed. And the kicker is that many of these other verses actually come from Paul himself!
Another thing: a lot of people think that Paul's view of Jesus is an innovation, or that his view of the Law is an innovation. It isn't. You can either find it in the words of Jesus himself, as stated in the gospels, or see that what he is doing is explaining what Jesus or other parts of Scripture taught (for Paul also engaged in much explication of the Old Testament).
You can in fact see the foundations for what Paul is saying laid already in the Old Testament. It is very true that it doesn't jive with the rabbinical interpretation, but it's not like Paul was ignorant of that. He started out, remember, as a star pupil of Gamaliel - one of the greatest rabbis of all time. It was because of a direct revelation from Jesus himself that he ever became anything other than the Pharisee Shaul, who went out trying to arrest and have executed those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah.
So, let's not confuse Paul himself with other people's interpretations of Paul.
Achelois, I'm with you about that verse in the Qur'an which has God telling Jesus something to the effect of 'See, I am about to cause you to fall asleep and take you up to Myself.' That verb 'to fall asleep' can indeed mean 'die' - I checked this with a Muslim native speaker of Arabic to be sure about it. And the person knew that it was in regard to this verse that I was asking, so they had every reason to tell me that this interpretation is not possible, if that were at all true. But they told me it is a possible interpretation.
ReplyDeleteWhat you forget, however, about the method used to execute Jesus was that at the time, Israel was under Roman occupation and therefore did not have the possibility of enacting the death penalty provided for in the Torah for blasphemy. It would have been illegal under Roman law. So they had to get the Romans to do it if it were going to happen at all. And obviously this meant they had to couch the matter in political terms so that the Romans would view Jesus as a threat worthy of the death penalty. But the fact of the matter is that from the Jewish standpoint, the problem was blasphemy - i.e. a problem of religious rather than political nature.
Achelois: I'd like to read it yes. And i will check out this book as well. I can agree that their were political motives in Jesus' crucifixion.
ReplyDeleteCaraboska: You are correct: people can prove anything with scriptures.
Jesus wasnt dead when they pulled him from the cross, he was declared dead, people say they still saw him moving, he was then moved correct, he wasnt left on the cross, so what ever happened between the cross and after only Allah knows, it isnt for us to question the validatity of what men say. If Allah says in the Qur'an what happened to Jesus then it is the truth for only Allah is the hearer and All knower, so dont question what men say, because it was men 60 years after Jesus (PBUH) that said the he was th son of GOd which is of course not true because Allah has no equal. History and truth are always changed because we have the ability to lie, to have an opinion and change whatever we went just because we say it is true. Trust one and that is Allah
ReplyDeletelovely and inspiring post.
ReplyDeleteCaraboska, the word is 'Tawaff'aitani' in verse 5:117 from the root word waw-fa-ya and there is only one meaning of Tawaff'aitani which is 'caused me to die/killed me/made me to die.'
ReplyDeleteRaised me up or made me sleep is not the correct meaning at all. The word is used 25 times in the Quran in various forms of the tense and in every case it means 'to die.' I have the entire list of the 25 times it is used and I have looked into every single verse. It means 'to die' in every single verse.
It is a difficult one to explain and at least all Muslims that I know don't know the correct word used in the verse and have never cared about it because it is firmly etched on their brains that Jesus didn't die. I think 90% of the Muslims don't know about the verse or have never studied it. It worried me enough to find out the other 25 times the word is used in the Quran!
I understand the Jews under Roman law argument and that is a good argument in favour of Jesus preaching that he was God and hence blaspheming in the eyes of the Jews.
Oh, and yes crucifixion is in the Bible like you well pointed out.
What I meant was that only one gospel really goes into any detail on the crucifixion, the rest its mostly a blurb. And I have always found it interesting that the basis of Christianity (Crucifixion and reserection) is explained in the Bible in 2 rather small paragraphs, some gospels a bit more detailed than others, and that the 12 stages are not confined within one gospel but spread out over the four. Some stages don't even seem to be mentioned, or at least not clearly. and it doesn't go into much depth about what either even means. Its mostly a literal account of what happened.
ReplyDeleteBut yes I still think the crucifixion happened.
Achelois: Yeah they don't read. But I don't think Jesus dieing contradicts the Qur'an depending on how you translate "Jesus was not crucified" if you take it in the sense that they failed to fully kill him because he was brought to Heaven and still lives within each one of us and his message then it works fine. Which interestingly enough is how some Christians believe Jesus still lives as well. So if you take this concept, which some muslims believe in, then the crucifixion can happen without contradicting the verse. Its just not the common interpretation.
Achelois, So the Qur'an is apparently even more in favor of Jesus' having died (before being raised to heaven) than I thought. Problem is, it appears that verse is somewhere other than 5:117. I'm just not finding anything about this particular matter in that verse or even on the same page. I had in mind 3:55. And that was the verse I was discussing with that Egyptian I mentioned before.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the idea that Jesus was not dead when they took him down from the cross is that, first of all, because the Sabbath was coming up the Jews told the guards to hurry things up. So they broke the thieves' legs, so they wouldn't be able to hold themselves up and would therefore die of asphyxiation. But it is stated that when they got to Jesus, they saw he was already dead, so they did not break his legs.
Presumably to make absolutely sure he was really dead, they speared him in the ribs, and 'blood and water' came out. In other words, he was so dead that his blood had already begun to separate. And it is clearly stated that the writer of this account (to be found in John 19:31-36) actually witnessed all this with his own eyes.
The Bible also clearly teaches in many places that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. It is stated as the basis of the Christian faith - that if Jesus did not rise *from the dead*, then the Christian's faith is in vain (I Corinthians 15:14). So any person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe this, is to put it very delicately wasting their time.
Personally I would comment that verse in the Qur'an that states that they did not kill Jesus as follows: no, that is very right, they didn't kill Jesus. Jesus says very plainly in the Gospel that no one takes his life away from him. He gives it voluntarily. God gave him the authority to lay down his life and to take it up again, and commanded him to use that authority (John 10:18).
PS It is also very clear from the Bible that the Jews at very least understood Jesus to be preaching that he was God. He didn't exactly deny it either. He cited Psalm 82:6: 'I have said you are gods [elohim], sons of God [Elyon] are you all.' Now, the word 'elohim' is in the plural - but it can also refer to God Himself (even though He is in principle singular). And Jesus says that if that word can be addressed to mere human beings... then he is allowed to say he is the Son of God and the question is why they still think he is blaspheming (John 10:34-36).
ReplyDeleteAnother matter whether he meant this in the same way that the verse from Psalms meant it. Rremember, this is the same guy who two chapters earlier claimed to have met Abraham in person, and when the Jews questioned him about this, replied, 'Before Abraham was, I am!' (John 8:58).
That amounts to a statement that he is God, because when Moses asked God for His name - since he was being charged to give a message to the people of Israel on God's behalf, and he wanted to know what he should say when the Israelites asked for the name of this deity who had sent him - God said, 'I AM WHO I AM. Tell them that I AM sent you.' (Exodus 3:14).
Caraboska, 3:55 is one of the 25 verses that use the form of 'Tawaff'aitani' that I was talking about.
ReplyDeleteLK, yes, I agree with your understanding - "if you take it in the sense that they failed to fully kill him because he was brought to Heaven and still lives within each one of us and his message then it works fine."
It might interest you and Caraboska too, I was reading about Ebionites once for my UU meeting - they were Jewish Christians - the earliest Christians and they believed that their faith was the purest - they were the hanif! The Ebionites beliefs were a lot like those of the Muslims – they believed that Jesus was just a man (but the greatest and last prophet); Jesus was begotten; he was the son of Joseph adopted by God to spread His message (there are ahadith that show that even Muhammad believed that Jesus was born like any other man hence denying virgin birth yet not denying any Quranic verses). According to the Gospel of the Ebionites (which is not canonical anymore) God accepted the pure sacrifice of Jesus and so He "raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven." This is what Quran preaches as well in effect. The problem arises (and even Arabic speakers twist their neurons to understand such verses - http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/t864-4.html) when we think that Islam preaches a new idea. It is new and ‘deviant’ from contemporary Christianity but in the 7th Century Arabia such ideas were not new; perhaps that is why early Muslims and Muhammad never faced the kind of attacks from Christians as they did from the Pagans – they were preaching what other Christian groups were also preaching.
I think the Quran makes a lot of references to such beliefs that existed amongst the Arians and the Ebionites which we sometimes can’t understand because the ideologies they refer to don’t exist anymore and we presume it is an innovative idea that exists only in the Quran. If we know that there were groups that believed that Jesus died on the Cross and then God accepted his sacrifice and raised him from dead and took him into Heaven, all these verses in the Quran will automatically make sense.
The problem is that there is nothing about sacrifice in the Qur'an and nothing in Islamic theology that I have seen thus far which would indicate a need for a sacrifice to redeem people from their sin. And what else would that sacrifice be for? That was the whole point of the sacrificial system in the Torah...
ReplyDeleteAchelois: OOOOOoooooo Im reading this. And I agree with you the verses referring to Jesus make more sense if you accept that he was crucified. I think that is why its still a huge topic of discussion. I think a lot of modern scholars are starting to see the common interpretation may not necessarily be the best one.
ReplyDeleteCaraboska: Its not about redeeming sin but its still a sacrafice. His life was sacraficed so he could bring his message to the people. Jesus knew that by bringing his message he would die but he did it anyway. Thus sacraficed himself for the good of the people so they recieve his message from God....at least that is how it has been explained to me.
"Its not about redeeming sin but its still a sacrafice. His life was sacraficed so he could bring his message to the people. Jesus knew that by bringing his message he would die but he did it anyway."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. That is how I have always seen Jesus' teachings and death. I don't understand redemption and that may well be my fault and lack of wisdom, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
Achelois: My issue with the Christian definition of redemption is that wonderful God fearing people like yourself would have no chance at even being considered for Heaven because you don't accept Jesus as your savior and God. But a murderer who is Christian and repents will have no issue being considered for Heaven because he believes in Christ as savior and God. I think that is all sorts of wrong and not the merciful God I have come to fear and love.
ReplyDeleteThat's all sorts of right because no one can achieve their own redemption and everyone has sinned. That means everyone needs redemption and it has to be provided by God Himself. If He doesn't do that, no one is saved.
ReplyDeletePS And where would be the mercy in just allowing everyone to go to hell and not giving them any way out?
ReplyDeleteGreat post and interesting discussion here. I read about the Gospel of Barnabas several months ago and found this which I found interesting especially since so many Muslims favor the GoB since they think it's more pro-Islam than the other gospels. I don't know this Muslim scholar so maybe he's considered weird...I don't know, but I thought I'd share this anyway. Especially if you are starting to favor the GoB yourself.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states:
As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64
------------------
Susanne: Oh I agree with him. Its pretty out there and it really doesn't agree all that well with the Qur'an.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post and discussion! Glad I read the comments to clarify your position, LK. I really thought you didn't believe in the crucifixion after reading the post.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't exactly know where I stand on it, but I have no problem accepting that Jesus was crucified, but as some have said towards the end of the discussion, it would have been a sacrifice for the sake of Jesus' message. Not for redemption...
Candice: Agreed.
ReplyDelete