Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by akoreamerican, May 22, 2015.
ive heard this from somewhere and it seems unbelievable that a religious text would say this
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The issue of the crucifixion and death of Jesus (Isa) is important to Muslims as they believe that Jesus will return before the end of time. Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified, but was raised bodily to heaven by God, a belief purported to be found in the Gospel of Basilides, of which, if it existed, no copies survived.
Depending on the interpretation of the following verse, Muslim scholars have abstracted different opinions. Some believe that in the Biblical account, Jesus's crucifixion did not last long enough for him to die, while others opine that God gave someone Jesus's appearance, causing everyone to believe that Jesus was crucified (majority view). A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his body is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so. In opposition to the second and third foregoing proposals, yet others maintain that God does not use deceit and therefore they contend that crucifixion just did not occur. The basis of all of these beliefs is the following verse in the Qur'an:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
—Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158
It would seem to be a topic of debate among the Muslim faith, it seems - I would like to hear the input off any of our membership who may be of Muslim faith on this matter (as my own limited knowledge of those texts is mostly from what I've read on my own, and thus is lacking the deeper understanding of them)
How very interesting. I didn't know this.
It seems the crucifixion is one of the few things about the life of Jesus that is regarded as historically pretty certain, due to its corroboration by other sources including the anti-Christian Tacitus. To quote Wiki (historicity of Jesus):
"Roman historianTacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116),book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds."
It seems the Koran has incorporated a sort of variant of the resurrection story in which Jesus never actually died, but only seemed to.
Not dying on the cross, is not the same as not being crucified. Jesus was a carpenter's son. This means he worked hard for a living, hammering and lifting beams. Jesus would have been strong and fit. Jesus was also criticized by the Pharisees, as being a drunkard and a glutton. He used to party with his buddies. Therefore he ate and drank very well, on top of being young, fit and strong. This is why he could carry his own cross. His conditioning and his extra diet, was optimized for the hardship he needed to face. God planned ahead.
Note that the Quran was written around 610 CE, so is far removed from being any form of direct evidence observed by the authors. It is of course claimed to be divinely inspired, so the issue of Jesus death is allegedly being told here by Allah.
The historicity of Jesus is highly disputed, and Wiki should not be assumed to be authoritative on this. The range is from; he never existed, to was only a man and not divine, a special prophet but not divine, to fully divine. There is no definitive independent evidence he existed, and what people choose to believe is more about their subjective assessments of probability based on time massaged tales from the myth makers of those early times.
Every religion has its own agenda and claims. The older religion, Judaism, likely has the more accurate and "independent" assessment on Jesus - just another (of many) false messiah claimant, and is thus appropriately ignored.
The creators of Islam, some 600 years later, introduce the semi-divine variant for Jesus - the idea of him as a prophet, a special messenger of Allah, being more than just a man.
Whether Jesus was crucified or not does not seem to be important - it is only a form of death. The issue is whether he was resurrected, a central and critical aspect for Christianity. Islam, must necessarily deny that Jesus was resurrected since that would promote Christianity to the one true religion when everyone must know that Islam is the one true religion.
It is interesting how the creators of Islam were trying not to dis Christianity completely but appeared to be trying to give Jesus a special place, even though not divine. Perhaps an attempt at compromise so as not to upset Christians completely. They failed of course since the Christians tried to exterminate them - re the Crusades.
Christians see Jesus as the savior of ALL mankind. Muslims see Jesus as an important prophet for just a special group of people, but it is Mohammed that brings the true message of mercy to ALL mankind. When the religions are reduced to their basic claims they appear like the counter claims of children - mine is best, no mine is best, etc.
all texts of religion were written by some man woman or child, they're not bad..just slow reads better and or worse than some fiction.
by the way Allah "is a beautiful word.
That Wikipedia excerpt looks like it was written by a Christian apologist. Given that Wikipedia can be edited by anonymous contributors, articles on controversial subjects are often highly contested.
Assuming that they accept that passage in Tacitus as genuine, I don't think that most historians think that Tacitus had any independent sources of information about Jesus' death. He was probably just reporting what the early Christians in Rome were saying about it. The fact (if that's what it is) that Tacitus includes it, suggests that perhaps he thought that the story of Jesus' crucifixion sounded plausible.
All you need to do is trace history from Jesus, to see the present, to see the impact that Christianity has had on the world. The sale pitch fixates on the negative but not only how it changed history. Christianity had a tough beginning being persecuted to death. They persisted until Christianity was made the official religion of Rome. After that, Christianity played a major role in changing the world. They were part of a wide range of world empires, discovery, innovations, art, science, education, changes in social and living standards, all the way to the USA; pilgrims.
The question becomes, how can an atheist assumed con job or fairy tale, perpetuate itself to where it would even alter the course of world history? The modern Hollywood star makers, make stars all the time, but their stars degenerate and sputter in a few years. President Obama was hope and change as the new liberal Messiah. But this did not last. Liberalism were not even fed to lions, yet it sputtered and did not persist. What was different?
Jesus did not have mass media, polls and test groups to act and say the right thing. He must have spoken truth, from the heart, to the hearts, without con artists, manipulators, and pollsters, part of his formula. Real lasts, fake fades. Even with atheism on the offense to disrupt religion, with confusion, the fake does not cut deep enough to change history.
So. Was Constantine evil or just deluded?
You're assuming that Jesus was real. If He wasn't, then He's an example of how a fictional character can alter the course of history.
Your capitalization of the name speaks volumes..
Because people believed it was true and it was mostly an inspirational positive message, and people do well with an optimistic positive perspective. It doesn't mean that ANY of the underlying claims were actually true.
Religions act exactly the same was as a placebo pill where the patient has been told it is a powerful drug. The positive psychosomatic reaction often causes real world physical changes and a positive result.
Religions and placebos can cause positive outcomes but both are the same - positive result from ZERO active ingredients.
The real benefits to the world have come entirely from mankind's creativity and imagination operating with a positive mental attitude. Magical and imaginary mystical forces have never been shown to play any role in those results.
If I understood my history lessons, Constantine was just an autocratic ruler------having one god in heaven, and one ruler on earth flowed naturally, one to the other.
Changing his capitol to the east where people were much more accepting of autocracy based on their histories and traditions is another indicator.
The council at Nicea was one more example: " Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church."
No confusion nor contention--------Just Constantine as the sole ruler.
(I've a personal hang up with the nicene creed---when in church and others are mouthing it's words, I remain mute)(it's a tad too exclusionary for my tastes)
Is a stable government not good for the citizenry?
Was his rule a benevolent dictatorship?
do we drop the benevolent part?
My apology. It was really sort of a troll question, not meant to lead anywhere in particular.
Constantine adopted Christianity as a way to expedite his political future and glue his city to the world map as 'The Rome of the East', if I remember correctly.
You talkin' to me? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I capitalize "He" for clarity when referring to God or Jesus - e.g. God told Adam that He was angry. I don't know what other volumes it speaks.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Capitalization of pronouns when referring to a deity is not part of the rules for English and is therefore not required, but neither is it wrong. It seems this is a personal choice - primarily to show reverence to that particular deity. I don't think it says or implies anything more.
Since I am not a believer I would not show a need for such "reverence", so lower case for me. And if there was a third option that showed irreverence then that would be my preference.
Elsewhere it has been argued that a single entity and sole cause of everything is likely not gender specific, but trying to substitute "her" as an alternative for "he", is simply confusing, and when I have tried to use "it" as the neutral form then that is also confusing.
You may be right. Do you know (or does anyone know) of an alternative scholarly reference that puts the contrary case?
Try "Who Wrote the New Testament?" by Mack.
It is a scholarly book though, NOT a religious text, so you are going to be struck with science and facts rather than religious fervor. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jesus the Palestinian was a Pharisee who ran 3 'Jesus Schools' that taught traditional practical knowledge - like where to put the well in relation to the community toilet when establishing a settlement. After the fall of Masada, the remnants of the 'christ cult' joined up with the 'Jesus schools' to survive the Roman crackdown.
Constantine and his mom censored and edited the New Testament to pretty much its present form while executing their book burning campaign to usher in the Dark Ages. There is a great passage in the text concerning how she walked through Jerusalem trailing monks and nuns, pointing out places that she figured were the sacred places mentioned in the religious texts. As she went on pointing these out, a monk or nun would stop and mark its location for future religious use.
So was the historical Jesus actually a "carpenter"? Lots of forests in Palestine were there? Lots of buildings made of wood? I haven't seen many of those there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Stone though, lots of it. That would then make it more probable that he was a mason then, wouldn't it?
Romans, like the Egyptians, kept very detailed written records or important events, like public executions. No record of Jesus the Palestinian being executed though. Also, conquered peoples were not Roman citizens and as such did not pay Roman taxes. There was no census taken of non Roman citizens as there was no need, though if there had been one it would have been recorded in official records, which it was not. :hmm:
Guess I shouldn't even mention that the actual people who built the pyramids were skilled Egyptian laborers who were paid for their work, lived, died and were buried in a special pyramid workers city at the work site. We have found their city and their bodies. No Jewish slave laborers to lead out of slavery while killing Pharaoh Ramses ll at the tender young age of 32 either. He made it to 93 by written historic records. Guess the Torah writers missed that bit, eh?
If I had to choose between the written Qumran texts, Roman & Egyptian records and a bunch of hand-me-down oral tradition heavily censored religious books put together by folks with an agenda to push, I would have to forgo the religious stuff in favor of the official records.
However, your' mileage may differ. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.