An interesting Islamic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

Sounds more like a case of mistakenly pronounced death than God playing musical chairs with Jesus' soul. At least it sounds more realistic than with the christian or muslim versions.

Errr... that is the Muslim version, or at least one of the several that exist.

The speaker in the video posted in the OP proposes that interpretation about God taking Jesus' soul on the cross, thereby fooling the Jews into thinking they crucified Jesus to death.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


What I'm saying is different than both versions.

I'm not saying that God took his soul and then put it back. Nor am I saying that he actually died and then brought himself back to life.

I'm saying his soul never left in the first place. I think he was mistakenly pronounced dead. The difference is subtle but still very clear.

sk0rpi0n
Pre-incarnate does not mean Jesus was God. He could have well existed as a spiritual being before Abraham was born... does not mean he was God.

What part of THE JEWS KNEW HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD don't you get?
Only God existed pre-birth according to the Jews. Pre-incarnate = GOD.

What about Melchizedek? He is described as being without mother or father and without beginning or end. Is he a God to you as well?

Frankly, many scholars don't think Melchizedek actually existed.
It's more folk lore that found it's way into Old Testament scriptures.
Myth .. like Adam and Eve, which is one of many creation myths around the world.
Myth .. like Noahs Ark.
But for those that think he may have been real -

Melchizedeck - without recorded genealogy

f the Bible’s genealogical list of Abram’s descendants was intended to be precise, a very elderly Shem could have walked the earth with Abram and blessed him, preceding him in death by only 25 years. But if the author of Genesis intended to provide only the highlights of Abram’s ancestry in Genesis 11, as many scholars believe, Melchizedek would likely have been a descendant of Shem (Ibid. Merrill argues that Shem’s being a contemporary of Abram’s seems difficult to reconcile with the Biblical data.) Shem lived 600 years, significantly less than his father Noah’s 950, and yet Gen. 25:8 describes Abraham, who lived until age 175, as a man who “died in a good old age, an old man and full of years” (Gen. 25:8). In other words, the argument is that 175 must have been a later era’s standard of old age.

But why a descendant of Shem? Because the Bible never says that the “blessing” departed from Shem’s line. And Abram, one of Shem’s direct descendants, dramatically received the blessing as recorded in Genesis 14.

Melchizedek - without recorded genealogy

The very few exegetes who thought that the text meant that
Melchisedech actually had no parents, found no followers. He had
father and mother, and doubtless, since he was both priest and king,
he could have exhibited very honorable tablets of lineage. But, as a
matter of fact, father, mother and genealogy are not mentioned in the
sacred text. , he is without them. Now reflection
shows that there is something remarkable in this omission. For the
genealogical tablets of eminent men are usual in the sacred
histories; and this priest is of such dignity that, in God's designs,
he blesses the very father and patriarch of the Chosen People.
Abraham kneels before Melchisedech, and pays him tithes of all he has
conquered. Moreover, priesthood in the ancient East commonly came by
blood-descent. Here is a priest of the Most High, about whose lineage
and title to succession there is not one word. But while the omission
is remarkable, absolutely nothing is to be made of it, unless it be
the Divine intention that the omission signify something. The
inspiration of the Letter to the Hebrews, and the use of the type
there, are the absolute security that God did intend to signify
something through the omission of the narrative.

Now the Aaronitic priesthood proved its whole right to its sacred
office by the specific title of lineage. On the contrary, the
priesthood of Christ is in fact that which Melchisedech's is in
portrayal, a priesthood without lineage. Christ did not inherit His
priestly office by the title of blood-descent, nor is His priesthood
multiplied that way. Lineage and hereditary succession mean
multiplicity; the posterity which succeeds has powers equal to those
of the progenitor. But where lineage and hereditary title are absent
there is but one priest, Christ; there is no multiplied posterity
with powers equal to His. Caiphas, in Aaron's line had the same
powers as Aaron; he was equally a priest with the ancestor from whom
he sprang. But no priest of Christ is a priest equally with Christ.
The Catholic priest is the minister of Christ; to whom Christ imparts
certain powers. But Caiphas was not the minister of Aaron.

Melchisedech

The Rabbins identified Melchisedech with Sem, son of Noah, rather for polemic than historic reasons, since they wished to set themselves against what is said of him as a type of Christ "without father, without mother, without genealogy" (Hebrews 7:3). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the typical character of Melchisedech and its Messianic import are fully explained.

The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech's birth and death was part of the divine plan to make him prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of Christ's generation, the eternity of His priesthood. Abraham, patriarch and father of nations, paid tithes to Melchisedech and received his blessing.

YOU are clinging on to that bit about Jesus saying "I am" while ignoring the other things Jesus said that proves he was not God.

DEAD WRONG. I acknowledged them and explained HYPOSTATIC UNION to you. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. I said very clearly that it is entirely appropriate for Jesus to speak of God the Father as separate AND as One with Him. HE DID BOTH. But you only look at those that show Him speaking to God the Father separately. You are cherry picking the bible. LOOK AT IT ALL TOGETHER.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

I'm saying his soul never left in the first place. I think he was mistakenly pronounced dead. The difference is subtle but still very clear.

Well being mistakenly pronounced dead and waking up in a dark tomb (which I'm assuming was pretty airtight) would have been a ghastly experience. If not for a miracle, Jesus would have been found broken and bloodied... and dead when the opened up the tomb (according to the Bible narrative).

Also, I doubt the Romans made mistakes when it came to executions. They even confirmed he was "dead" on the cross... and handed over a lifeless body to be buried. According to the theory in the OP, his body was lifeless because because God took his soul... but Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion.

sk0rpi0n
I doubt the Romans made mistakes when it came to executions. They even confirmed he was "dead" on the cross... and handed over a lifeless body to be buried. According to the theory in the OP, his body was lifeless because because God took his soul... but Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion.

= Then he was DEAD. The soul leaving the body means the person is DEAD.
= The severe beating and loss of blood and SPEAR THROUGH THE HEART killed him.
= The soul being back in the body means He came back to life. Risen from the dead.

He was murdered. He died. He rose from the dead by the power of God.
Jesus claimed to be God over and over .. and His miracles proved that He indeed was.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Frankly, many scholars don't think Melchizedek actually existed.
It's more folk lore that found it's way into Old Testament scriptures.
Myth .. like Adam and Eve, which is one of many creation myths around the world.
Myth .. like Noahs Ark.
But for those that think he may have been real -

Oh great. Now you have a problem with Adam, Eve, Noah and Melchizedek.

You aren't even discussing this from a proper Christian perspective.
You have your own little homemade religion made from bits that you like. Good for you, but it is counter productive to a discussion on the Bible.

You are cherry picking the bible. LOOK AT IT ALL TOGETHER.

Thats rich coming from someone who dismisses Biblical characters such as Adam, Eve, Noah and Melchizedek as a myth. By doing so, you have declared you don't really have a dog in this race.

sk0rpi0n
Now you have a problem with Adam, Eve, Noah and Melchizedek.

More deflection on your part. A great deal of Christianity recognizes that Adam and Eve are just creation mythology ... and historical facts shows that Noahs' Ark was a story 'borrowed' by the Jews from the Summerians. And as far as Melchizedek goes ... you really should learn to read .. I said some scripture scholars doubt that he existed but instead is folk lore, but others discuss his probable genealogy via Shem/Noah. Just because his genealogy is unrecorded doesn't mean he magically appeared on earth - if he existed at all.

Learn to read what is posted. No wonder you can't learn anything.
You don't read information that doesn't tickle your fancy.

You aren't even discussing this from a proper Christian perspective. You have your own little homemade religion made from bits that you like. Good for you, but it is counter productive to a discussion on the Bible.

WRONG. My beliefs are irrelevant to the facts and your deflection attempt (again) is epic failure. AGAIN ... get on topic and address the facts ....


Matthew .. written by the Apostle Matthew.
Mark ... He wrote what Peter told him.
Luke .... He wrote what Mary and Paul told him
John ... written by the Apostle John

Estimated Dates
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63,
John: c. 85 to near 100

Now subtract 33 years from those because the counting started at Jesus birth.
Matthew - finished 27 years after Jesus died
Mark - finished 17 years after Jesus died
Luke - finished 26 years after Jesus died
John - finished 52 years after Jesus died.

Compare with the Qu'ran written 600+ years after Jesus died.

AND YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE QUOTES FROM JESUS

Jesus Himself said He came down from heaven. John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"

Jews believe God alone gives life - Jesus Himself said He is life - John 11:25: Jesus said to her, "I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

More of Jesus Own words -
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
“…that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)
“…He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

Jesus Says "I am the Good Shepherd

Jesus says in John 10:11-18 that he is the Good Shepherd. When you read this passage along with Ezekiel 34:1-16, you can see that Jesus was identifying Himself with God, who pronounced Himself Shepherd over Israel .

Jesus death - via EYEWITNESS accounts

= He was DEAD. The soul leaving the body means the person is DEAD.
= The severe beating and loss of blood and SPEAR THROUGH THE HEART killed him.
= The soul being back in the body means He came back to life. Risen from the dead.

He was murdered. He died. He rose from the dead by the power of God.
Jesus claimed to be God over and over .. and His miracles proved that He indeed was.

The Islamic fiction that was made up 600+ years later had to try to take away Jesus being
God so it totally counters what the eyewitness said. The Islamic fictional story is a
convoluted mess and unreliable.

sk0rpi0n
you have declared you don't really have a dog in this race.

Nope. Facts are facts. My beliefs are irrelevant.
I find your irritation at being bested by an educated Christian woman to be comical.
6 pages of blah blah blah and you haven't been able to debunk the facts I presented.
ADDRESS THE FACTS I HAVE PROVIDED. STOP DEFLECTING.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Also, I doubt the Romans made mistakes when it came to executions. They even confirmed he was "dead" on the cross... and handed over a lifeless body to be buried. According to the theory in the OP, his body was lifeless because because God took his soul... but Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion.

But it happens all the time. Even today, with all of the modern medical equipment, mistakes are still made and people have literally woken up laying on the morticians table.

So why could'nt the same thing have happened to Jesus?

Sorry I haven't returned to this conversation... it got hostile and I have no intention in participating in a fight...

I would just like to point out... Blood and water doesn't "flow" from a dead body

Cancerwarrior
So why could'nt the same thing have happened to Jesus?

Because the soldier at the foot of the cross rammed a spear through his heart.
Blood and water gushed forth.
The blood from the heart .. the water from the lungs (he was drowning in body fluids as he died)
Read - A Doctor at Calvary by Dr. Pierre Barbet.
The gospel eyewitness accounts of Jesus crucifixion are medically correct.
The Qu'ran gets it medically wrong. (gets it ALL wrong)

Akragon
Blood and water doesn't "flow" from a dead body

When it is raised up on a cross and bloated with internal water/blood, it will burst forth when skewed. See the book I referenced. It is a good read. Very interesting from a medical perspective.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I have a bit of a medical back ground... of course im no doctor though... but I find it highly unlikely the spear hit his heart...

coming from the right side it would have been a one in a million shot... especially since he was "raised up" on the stake...

His arms were over his head not extended to the sides... thus his vital organs would have also been in a higher position

Where Muhammad got his fictional story of the crucifixion of Jesus -

Why Islam Denies Jesus Died on the Cross
Loosely plagiarized by Muhammad from the GNOSTIC stories he heard.
The 2nd century Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
The 2nd century Gnostic text, the 2nd treatise of Great Seth
The 2nd century Gnostic text, the Acts of John

It is clear that Islam’s denial of the crucifixion of Christ comes from straight Gnosticism which Mohammad was influenced by as well as various other heretical forms of Christianity such as Nestorianism. If Muslims accept this is the origin of the Koran’s denial of the crucifixion and say the Gnostics got it from Allah then they also have to accept every other single Gnostic doctrine as coming from Allah such as Christ nature as a divine spirit, Mary being in the trinity, their beliefs about the goddess Sophia, dualism, docetism etc. But as no Muslim would be prepared to I think. I have proven the Koran’s plagiarized origins once again.

More qu'ran plagiarized origins
Pretty good list on this discussion forum.

A little light reading for the Muslims who buy the Qu'rans version of the Crucifixion

FlyersFan
Where Muhammad got his fictional story of the crucifixion of Jesus -

Why Islam Denies Jesus Died on the Cross
Loosely plagiarized by Muhammad from the heretical GNOSTIC stories he heard.
The 2nd century Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
The 2nd century Gnostic text, the 2nd treatise of Great Seth
The 2nd century Gnostic text, the Acts of John

It is clear that Islam’s denial of the crucifixion of Christ comes from straight Gnosticism which Mohammad was influenced by as well as various other heretical forms of Christianity such as Nestorianism. If Muslims accept this is the origin of the Koran’s denial of the crucifixion and say the Gnostics got it from Allah then they also have to accept every other single Gnostic doctrine as coming from Allah such as Christ nature as a divine spirit, Mary being in the trinity, their beliefs about the goddess Sophia, dualism, docetism etc. But as no Muslim would be prepared to I think. I have proven the Koran’s plagiarized origins once again.

More qu'ran plagiarized origins
Pretty good list on this discussion forum.

A little light reading for the Muslims who buy the Qu'rans version of the Crucifixion

I suggested this theory in the beginning of this thread... the story sounds very gnostic

Akragon coming from the right side it would have been a one in a million shot... especially since he was "raised up" on the stake...

I dunno. I"m sure it could be done. John 19:34 just says that a spear was thrust into his side and blood and water came forth without saying which side. Which Side of Jesus Body was Pierced? However, the Shroud of Turin shows the wound to be on the right side and to be the correct size for a Roman spear

There is a large chest wound.

The right side of the man's chest reveals evidence of a large chest wound, accompanied by a pool of blood. The blood appears to have oozed out by a force of gravity, rather than being pumped out - hence medical examiners believe it to be post-mortem in nature . There is also evidence that the stain is not entirely composed of blood - a clear watery material is also present. The size and shape of the wound (4.4 cm by 1.1 cm) also match what would have been caused by a Roman "lancea", and instrument used by foot soldiers of the Roman militia.

His arms were over his head not extended to the sides... thus his vital organs would have also been in a higher position

The Shroud of Turin doesn't have them in that position. Latest info on Shroud of Turin . Coin dates. Flower imprints w/ pollen to that region. Dating of original fibers. etc. All point to coming from Jesus time and place.

Sure, it COULD have been done that way, but the shroud doesn't have them in that position.

A Physicians View of the Crucifixion

For instance, the upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached two or three feet below its top in what we commonly think of as the Latin cross. The most common form used in our Lord’s day, however, was the Tau cross, shaped like our T.

In this cross, the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified. Without any historical or biblical proof, Medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. But the upright post, or stipes, was generally fixed permanently in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution.

There is interesting info on the blood and water flowing out of the pierced heart ...

Then another agony begins -- a terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart. One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.”

It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain.

Apparently, to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John reports: “And immediately there came out blood and water.” That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Akragon
I suggested this theory in the beginning of this thread... the story sounds very gnostic

Absolutely. The gnostic stories were widely available in Muhammads time. Being from a busy trading city, he would have heard them, along with the stories of the other religions ... Judaism, non-gnostic Christianity, Paganism and Zoroastrianism.

All these elements .. especially the gnostic stories ... can easily be seen in Islam.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well... I personally wouldn't put too much stock in the shroud... That's just me though

Its a fact that Jesus was not nailed to a cross though... the word Cross isn't even the correct word used.

And besides that point... we do now have evidence of a roman crucifixion... They used a stake or pole, not a cross...

Jesus feet were nailed to the sides of the stake... not on a little pedestal... and his arms were over his head not extended on a cross bar which also isn't mentioned in any of the stories.

reply to post by Akragon

You mean a gibbet? I don't know. Scripture doesn't say except that he had to carry his cross. That was usually just the pativulum (cross bar) that was carried and not the whole thing (that would have been impossible). I'm seeing information that crucifixion in that time period was many different ways, but early church writings from 100 AD describe it as a 'T'.

Some archeological information on crucified remains/crosses from Jesus time period and early Christianity in that area of the world.

A Physicians View of the Crucifixion

For instance, the upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached two or three feet below its top in what we commonly think of as the Latin cross. The most common form used in our Lord’s day, however, was the Tau cross, shaped like our T.

In this cross, the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified. Without any historical or biblical proof, Medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. But the upright post, or stipes, was generally fixed permanently in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution.

More medical info on the post mortem wound in Jesus side
... with more links by physicians who had information on Jesus death and post mortem wound

Therefore, the water probably represented serous pleural and pericardial fluid, 5-7, 11 and would have preceded the flow of blood and been smaller in volume than the blood. Perhaps in the setting of hypovolemia and impending acute heart failure, pleural and pericardial effusions may have developed and would have added to the volume of apparent water.5, 11 The blood, in contrast, may have originated from the right atrium or the right ventricle (Fig. 7) or perhaps from a hemoperieardium.5, 7, 11 ....

However, another explanation may be more likely. Jesus' death may have been hastened simply by his state of exhaustion and by the severity of the Scourging, with its resultant blood loss and preshock state.7 The fact that he could not carry his patibulum supports this interpretation. The actual cause of Jesus' death, like that of other crucified victims, may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemie shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and perhaps acute heart failure2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11 A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have accounted for the apparent catastrophic terminal event.

Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death (Fig 7). Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.