The Crucifixion and The Qur'an: An Exegetical and Historical Inquiry Into Surah 4:157-158.

Salam alaikum our consul I better catch smell our menorah him welcome thank you for coming to this lecture I'll be your speaker my name is dr. Ali I'm a professor here is a tuna College I teach a number of courses here lecture tonight is on the crucifixion and the Quran before we get into it I would like to invite brother abdullah ahmed to recite some ayat of the Quran Salam alaykum wa rahmatullah Recaro don't belong Mina shape on your og savvy minakami Sakawa come free me [Music] Furby monopoly meetha homework ooh free Huey uh yeah uh [Music] well questioning him would be [Music] bingo anyhow poor well konima no boner once baba wawa a hobby cofrin for me no for me noona yah Connie de huaah been conferring my pony Mala Mala my boom Tanana Bhima waponi him in a pot a little messy hurry Sabina Maryam Allah soon along want a normal son a boy what a killer should be had a womb what in 11 of TANF or feel efficient caming mala who be mean I'll mean Allah t-bar one I'm a wanted woman Tina but often a [Music] battle of Halloween anyone can along Y Z's and hang kima so I don't go long no beam in the name of God the benevolent the merciful then for their breaking of their covenant and their disbelieving in the signs of God and their slaying of the prophets without right and their saying our hearts are wrapped rather God has set a seal upon them for their disbelief so they believe not except for a few and for their disbelief and their uttering against Mary a tremendous slander and for their saying we slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary the Messenger of God though they did not slay him nor did they crucify him but it appeared so unto them those who differ concerning him are in doubt thereof they have no knowledge of it that follow only conjecture they slew him not for certain but God raised him up unto himself and God is mighty and wise so again the title of the lecture is the crucifixion and the Quran and exegetical and historical inquiry into chapter 4 verse 157 158 the first time I ever read the Quran I was a bit old it was about eighteen and I came across this ayah or 4:157 and a use of Ali translation and it said about Jesus peace be upon him that they did not kill him nor crucify him and immediately I thought to myself what he wasn't crucified and initially I felt a type of relief I said thank God that didn't happen to him but then I felt a type of tension why are the Bible in the Quran seemingly saying different things because I grew up in the 1980s and on cable TV during the holiday season they would always play these classic Jesus movies like Jesus of Nazareth or King of Kings Ben Hur and I found these movies to be very fascinating and of course all of these movies have crucifixion scenes I mean that's the sort of crescendo the climax of these movies so I found those scenes to be very powerful and poignant but as a child you can imagine I also found them a bit confusing even disturbing so initially it was quite refreshing what the Quran was saying but then I had that tension why are the Bible in the Quran saying different things so the quick and lazy answer from many Muslim apologists goes something like this the Quran is correct because it's a divine revelation so the Bible must be incorrect incorrect were corrupted because it's different than the Quran and in fact they continue to say many secular historians almost all confirmed that the Bible is wrong about many things and then they'll start quoting people like airman and Pagels and James Don and John Dominic Crossan even Richard carrier so the point is that very often Muslim apologists apply a very liberal a very liberal historical critical method when it comes to the New Testament a method that they would never apply to the Quran while seemingly choosing to ignore the fact that these same secular historians would also assert that the Quran is also wrong about many things for example as a Muslim if you're going to use Julius Wellhausen documentary hypothesis and argue against mosaic composition of the Pentateuch then it probably behooves you to have a very compelling response to what wellhausen says about the importance origins so we must be thorough and consistent in our methodology I want to make it clear from the outset that this lecture will not contain a formal critique of Trinitarian soteriology that is to say a vicarious atonement that is to say the significance of the crucifixion for most Christians nor is it necessarily an examination of the scriptural authenticity of the New Testament Gospels although I will be forced to say something about that in tonight's lecture I simply want to present to you what Muslim exegetes have said about the AIA under analysis for 157 I caught I call it IH with sunbeh the verse of the crucifixion why they have said these things and then examine their conclusions in light of intertextual and historical concerns much of what i will present to you you can find in a wonderful book called the crucifixion and the quran a study in the history of muslim thought excuse me by professor Todd lawson ok now good so far so good with the technology that's my biggest fear by the way there's only one explicit reference to the in the entire Quran to the crucifixion or alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ the first half of the ayah is translated by the study Horan as follows and for their saying we slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary the Messenger of God though they did not slay him in order they crucify him but it appears so unto them so the big question is what exactly is this is saying now the vast majority of exigence from pre Tabari times throughout the classical and medieval periods and into the modern period have maintained what Lawson calls a negative interpretation of the ayah namely that the Quran is categorically denying the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth that Jesus was not crucified this position stems from a semantical understanding of the highly enigmatic phrase in ayah too subtle but while that kinship be halal with the verb should be ha being a Hipparchus legume anon which is a an academic way of saying that this is the only occurrence of this verb in the entire Quran within a phrase that Lawson calls a textbook example of a multi vocal verse which is another academic way of saying a very unclear ambiguous verse and what Sidney Griffith refers to as a crux interpret um or a central difficulty of exegesis and you'll see why this apparent denial of the crucifixion by the Quran has incurred the academic wrath if you will of Christian thinkers from John Damascene in the 8th century to William Lane Craig in the 21st century for example the latter put it like this quote the one indisputable fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is recognized by every single historical scholar or every so historical scholar is that Jesus died by crucifixion and yet this is the one historical fact about Jesus that the firaon denies end quote for Christians the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus are the seminal events in Salvation history everything is built upon these two events Paul says if Christ is not raised he says Mattea hypest is Herman then your faith is in vain so most just to correct dr. Craig here I would say most secular historians agree that while the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is historical because it probably happened history is based on probability the resurrection cannot be historical because it probably didn't happen the resurrection is by definition a miracle which is the least probable event now let's take a quick look at the historical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus offered by secular historians and this is also evidence that supports the Christian position the death of Jesus of Nazareth is by crucifixion is is attested in ancient Latin and Greek sources so these are Roman these are Jewish and these are Christian the Roman historian Tacitus wrote in the annals this is passage 1544 and he's riding around 116 of the Common Era so it's about 85 years after the historical Jesus he says the Christians were persecuted by Nero take their name from Christ and then he says in the Latin tie Barrow in peloton taper procurer tourim Pontius Pilate Jesus who was executed during the reign of Tiberius under the governor Pontius Pilate now this quotation however actually from an 11th century manuscript of the annals of Tacitus so it is very very late there is also the testimonial Flavio Nome in passage 18 3 of Josephus's antiquities which was written in the 90s so about 60 years after the historical Jesus now Josephus was a Jewish historian most scholars actually believe that this passage was fabricated in part by later Christian historians possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea but many also maintain the authenticity of Josephus description of Jesus when he says styro epithet II make a toast Pilate that he was condemned to a cross by Pilate many other historians however believe the entire passage is a fabrication of course all four New Testament Gospels say Jesus died on the cross these Gospels are the primary historical sources for the life of Jesus of Nazareth they're written between 65 and 95 of the Common Era according to most historians although the modern trend is to actually date them even earlier according to Raymond Brown Muslim theologians or Christians believe that these writings are inspired holy and accurate as do some Muslim theologians by the way but historically speaking speaking non confessional II you will get opinions that classify the Gospels as being anything from the genre of non historical symbolic myths to semi historical ancient biography examining these opinions is not an objective of tonight's lecture I will say however that most secular historians will grant that there is definitely an historical element to the New Testament Gospels which one must somehow extract through a method of historical criticism and this process began in the 1770s during the Enlightenment famous historian Bart Ehrman who has many historical issues with the New Testament Gospel accounts nonetheless he says quote one of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea Pontius pie he also said you cannot explain the crucified Messiah as something that was made up you cannot explain the crucified Messiah as something that was made up in other words for Airmen this fulfills the historical criterion of the principle of embarrassment that the early disciples for early Christians who were mitts vote keeping Jews they would not have invented the death of their Messiah because that is embarrassing a dead Messiah was viewed by them as initially in possibility a failure so why would they maintain that he died well the one answer is because he must have died no one would invent a dead messiah it's too embarrassing Marc who's running around 70 of the Common Era he tells us that while on the cross he says ha de Asis our face phone a mega Lane that Jesus made a loud sound except Newson then his Ponemah his spirit his soul this is also the wind the word for wind or breath exited him or you might say euphemistically he took his last breath the same verb is used in Luke who's running around 80 Matthew who's also riding around 75 or 80 he says hey de Asis pollen cruxes phone a mega lay a fake and top an Ummah Jesus again shouted with a loud voice and let go or yielded up the spirit mara John who's running around 90 or 95 he says peridot cantata Numa he gave up or handed over the spirit now notice something no gospel author says that Jesus died on the cross they don't use that verb the verb to die in Greek apathy NASSCO is used 122 times in the New Testament but the gospel authors don't say that now that's clearly what happened I am NOT saying that the Gospels are saying that he didn't die they're saying he did die but they all use a euphemism that his soul or spirit was lifted away let go or given up this idea that Jesus offered his soul and God receive so they circum the low pute the explicit word die and i think this is significant and i think it's significant when we examined the relevant quranic passages linguistically because the quran I contend does the very same thing mirroring the gospel discourse so keep that in mind Paul of course is very explicit he says in first Corinthians 15:3 and he's writing in the mid 50's so this is actually before the four Gospels he says Christos a person in Christ died okay historically Muslim exigence have interpreted this ayah to support one of three positions and when I say exigence I'm drawing from the larger exegetical tradition so sunni-shia motifs Ely and Sufi all three positions maintain that there was a crucifixion there was a crucifixion yet they differ on the victim incidentally there is no hadith that is both Sahir and more for that provide details of the events of the first Good Friday of course today tonight is Good Friday it is at this very moment that Christians believe Jesus actually died on the cross in other words there isn't a hadith that is sound in its it's not is chain of transmission that can be traced back to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that that give us an explanation as to what this verse is actually saying so there are three theories here the first one is the substitution theory also known as literal docetism I'll explain this term docetism it has two flavors the first flavor is supernatural identity transference which is either volitional or punitive I'll explain all of this god-willing Deo volente inshallah and the other flavor is mistaken identity which is rational or naturalistic the other position is called the swoon theory or figurative death and then the third position is an affirmation of Christ's crucifixion I call this figurative docetism and it has two flavors natural biological death which is more or less the Christian position and unnatural biological death which involves divine pneumatic rapture or assumption so we'll take these one at a time and before I forget we are going to take a break at 7:50 for the prayer and some light refreshments if they're there I don't know I don't see any it's okay you don't you don't need physical my dad you're gonna get a lot of intellectual and spiritual anyway so we're gonna break it 750 and we'll be back at 8:05 in châlons let's try to come back promptly I do have a lot to say and I do want to leave a lot of time for Question and Answer and discussion I will tell you before the night is over which position I think is correct that is to say what I think the Quran is actually saying and I think it'll surprise you I might have to run out that way the most popular theory by far and away is the substitution theory in other words there was a crucifixion but it wasn't Jesus why because this was how the enigmatic phrase should be hollow home was almost always interpreted exigence took Jesus to be the conceptual subject of the passive verb should be ha so they did not kill him who's they that's another question they did not kill him nor did they crucify him but he was made to appear so unto them ie he was seemingly crucified and they took this to mean that a semblance or a simulacrum of some sort was crucified not the genuine article so let's start with one a the substitution theory via supernatural identity transference that is either volitional or punitive so Neal Robinson maintains that the earliest extant textual witness for the substitution theory is from the pen of a Syrian exigent of the floor on a Christian named Johanna adam Ashley or John of Damascus John Damascene who died 749 Damascene was a very first Christian scholar to launch a polemical critique of Islam which he actually considered to be a Christian heresy he didn't believe it was a different religion he the heresy of the hag arenas or the heresy of the Ishmaelites although there certainly are pre Damascene muslim traditions that advocate the substitution theory these are only textually witnessed in the much later encyclopedia super commentary of imam at Abadi who died in 923 of the Common Era so Damascene seems to be relaying what some early muslim exigence were already saying about the ayah so I don't believe that Damascene originated the substitution theory interestingly according to Louie Matheny on the famous orientalist the substitution theory originated with radical Shiite groups who claim that their Imams only appeared to suffer and die like the Huckabee a substitution of the Imams however is not a standard Twelver position if Nadia nonetheless the exact the exact popularity of the substitution theory in pre Damascene Islam is simply impossible to know the substitution theory by way of supernatural identity transference is attributed to none other than mufasa de loop or an even Abbas who says that a Jewish enemy of Jesus that he identifies as not Janos was transfigured in the likeness of Jesus and crucified so this is punitive or punishment substitution there were many scholars Western scholars like Andrew Ripon who maintained that the so called tan wheedle MIT vas is probably the work of a much later exigent named mohammad al qalbi in fact many confessional or lama have often questioned the authenticity of the tafseer attributed to eben Abbas as well now Imam Autobody survey several early exigence who all basically subscribe to the substitution theory in some form of an or another Mujahid at a de Icaza Masuda even is Haq he gives special treatment however to Wahab even emunah b who died 732 a Yemenite muslim reputed to have been a scholar of judaism and christianity Lawson actually says quote the most influential traditions denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority end quote now Wahab reputation varies from trust trustworthy too brazen liar Wahab gives several accounts some based on material found in the New Testament Gospels in some not tow body's preferred account and final opinion from Wahab says that when the Jewish authorities came to arrest Jesus all but one of his disciples scattered or in the language of the synoptic Gospels they forsook him and fled this sole disciple was then voluntarily transfigured to look like Jesus and he was tortured and crucified the other disciples then erroneously reported that Jesus had been crucified but toe body is insistent that we should not consider two disciples liars they actually believe that Jesus had been killed so this is volitional or volunteer substitution somebody volunteered to substitute Jesus this was a mamata bodies final position and we know that his tafseer which is the seminal january began was influential beyond measure for future exigence due to imamat uh bodies tremendous influence the substitution theory dominated muslim exegetical tradition whether it was Sunni Shia Sufi or Martez ad during the Classical period so the Classical period is between uh body and soil tea in other words between the tenth and the sixteenth centuries that is to say the stories of Wahb dominated the Classical period the proto Sunni majority has no major issues with the substitution theory at phala B says that Pilate the Roman governor was made to look like Jesus so punitive identity transference the famous she exits at 2 C and a Tabrizi pioneers of 12 or Shiism they say it was some unnamed disciple of Jesus so that's volitional identity transference the Sufi Aleppo sherry he says this is well Badawi advocated punitive identity transference he identifies the crucified victim as Tata news an enemy of Jesus even Cathy R and so you see also advocate supernatural identity transference in some form Reynolds at Notre Dame cites these various and in many cases contradictory legends as a prime example of Taino mohim which is the exegetical construction of narratives intended to clarify a scriptural ambiguity what he's trying to say there is they made them up in the pre-modern and modern period supernatural identity transference also reigned supreme this is advocated by illusi for example say it uh table of the modern reformist movement who died in 1966 in his highly influential Phoebe Liddell poor on polemically attacks the Johannine passion narrative he attacks the passion narrative in the Gospel of John he calls it a beer disgusting and written too late to be accurate yet he utilizes the disastrous in Jilla Barnaba the Gospel of Barnabas to establish his own opinion that Judas Iscariot Judas was the disciple who betrayed Jesus in the New Testament that Judas was transfigured to look like Jesus and subsequently crucified I'll say more about Barnabas and though these modernists a little bit later inshallah let's move to 1b this is a substitution theory via mistaken identity so this tends to be a mark Tesla a rationalist and sometimes a shitty position according to this the confusion that ensued from the events leading up to the crucifixion can be explained away purely on rational grounds no supernatural identity transference is needed human error is to blame so abdul-jabbar the famous Laker pause for laughter just making sure he's still awake okay abdul-jabbar the famous Martez le rationalist scholar he says that Judas identified a random Jewish man as being Jesus to the Jewish religious authorities by kissing him Judas just wanted his thirty shekels of silver apparently the authorities did not know exactly what Jesus looked like to begin with this random man was interrogated and found innocent by both Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate but nonetheless crucified by an angry Jewish mob in a field Judas felt remorse later about falsely accusing this innocent man and eventually hanged himself from a tree as the machete relates the old story of Jesus asking for a volunteer to be martyred and Jesus casting his likeness upon this disciple but it is not clear at all whether as the machete actually endorses this opinion as a machete is a linguistic master and once in a while a commentator will hit exegetical gold he'll arrive at some significant realization about the text that essentially challenges the standard reading and we'll see this again with imam arrazi as a machete proposes that the conceptual subject of shabeeha cannot be Jesus if you want to go with the substitution theory then should be hala whom can only mean that Jesus was made to look like someone else not vice-versa thus substitution becomes untenable he rather proposes that the conceptual subjects in why Lacan should be hala home is the impersonal pronoun it so not he was made to appear so but rather it the event of the crucifixion was made dubious unto them in other words the Jews did not understand the significance of the crucifixion they misjudged it they misread it and this actually sounds like Paul and first corinthians this linguistic subtlety has far-reaching implications we'll come back to this but Lawson says that this quote makes room for a break with the substitution legend the substitution theory via mistaken identity also tends to be the position of the modern reformist school so to see Luminara she delayed our Mohammad Abdu so riddle was actually the first to employ the infamous Gospel of Barnabas some 30 years before say it butoh although Barnabas is cited by Rita he doesn't seem to endorse a supernatural identity transference but rather that it was a simple case of mistaken identity Judas was taken to be Jesus and subsequently crucified so the core of Barnabas is affirmed sort of stripped of its supernatural miss Mao doodied in 1979 he does not use Barnabas at all but seems to suggest that Barabbas may have been mistaken for Jesus and crucified the story of Barabbas and Jesus is mentioned in all four Gospels now what is characteristic among these modern exigence whether it's Pluto Bora da Abdul or modu D is almost a an obligation to oppose Christianity at every opportunity Mahmoud Ayub suggests that they're highly polemical tifosi are more of a more a result of their social religious cultural and political climates than an even method of scholarship for example criticising the New Testament Gospels written in the first century as spurious untrustworthy late suspicious and disgusting yet relying heavily upon the Gospel of Barnabas a text written in Italian that that calls the Prophet Muhammad the Messiah that contains clear anachronisms and has zero textual witnesses prior to the 16th century that is just simply inexcusable and this goes back to what I was saying earlier about methodological unevenness in modern Muslim apologetics viewing the east and west as competing or clashing civilizations will do that to you that's a worldview that often betrays our intellectual honesty well what about FDR not Franklin Delano Roosevelt silly for Adina Rossi I thought it was another opportunity for some comic relief it gets really serious and then so imam arrazi he gives us a new deal to lift us out of the exegetical depression imam arrazi is very critical he's very critical of the standard substitution theory via supernatural identity transference his concerns are both epistemological and unethical he says in I'm quoting from Lawson he says such confusion about perceived phenomena on massachusett would threaten the foundations of all religious laws neither is it permissible to argue for such transference of identity by appealing to the tradition that allows for miracles during the time of prophecy such a provision would bring into question the identity of the prophets themselves which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge in other words we count on our senses to a certain extent to know reality to gain knowledge to identify people to give legal testimony why would God in effect deceive people with respect to these things so imam arrazi finds supernatural identity transfer inference a bit morally unacceptable in the counter to this if one were to play devil's advocate would be something like well if Islam is true theologically then the Trinity is false therefore billions of people for thousands of years were ultimately deceived anyway one could argue Roz even surveys several substitution legends doesn't seem to endorse any one of them he also suggests that when God raised Jesus to himself says in ayah 158 of chapter 4 Rafa Apple la la God raised him unto himself it wasn't a physical raising that occurred when the Jewish authorities came to arrest Jesus and someone else was transfigured to look like him but rather that God raised the rank and degree of Jesus in the same sense as what a finale this may be similar to what Bart Ehrman actually calls exaltation Christology which is found in Paul and Mark and Matthew in other words Jesus's obedience and selflessness led to God exalting him so Jesus wasn't rescued as it were nor was there a transference of identity now Lawson remarks that Rossi Steph see it actually had very little influence on later Muslim exigence and the reason I think is clear his Tessier can actually be read to affirm the physical death of Jesus on the cross now Rossi doesn't say that explicitly but it can be inferred now what does one do with rahmatullahu a masala boohoo they did not kill him nor crucify him welcome back to the linguistics and subtext of that expression inshallah before we move to the swoon theory let's ask an important question are there pre Quranic precedence for literal docetism during the interval era or at the interval era the fatah that's the time between Jesus peace be upon him and the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him are there pre Quranic precedents for this idea that it only seemed as though Jesus was crucified but he really wasn't there are and they come from the Gnostic Christian communities the early Gnostics were very diverse in their christological beliefs they maintained that proper gnosis of God offered by Christ was the means of salvation not the death of Christ as a vicarious atonement for sin the Gnostics loved Jesus a statement in Matthew 9 13 where Jesus quotes the first half of Hosea 6:6 where he says ki pheasant AFET ste villosa bok indeed I require mercy and not sacrifice the second half of that statement says what dat elohim may aloof and i require the knowledge of god more than burnt offerings gnosis / sacrifice however Gnostics also tended to magnify the divinity or lute aspect of Christ and many even maintain that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body because he was pure deity this is why they're called the dosa tey from the Greek verb decay or which means to see more to appear Jesus only seemed to be a fleshy body in reality he was a pure divine spirit a phantasm of a human being kind of like a thick ghost in the First Epistle of John chapter 4 in the New Testament the author says that anyone who claims that Jesus did not come and sarky in flesh in the flesh is an antichrist oz is an antichrist so the author clearly condemning the Gnostic dos atte for their beliefs Saint Ignatius of Antioch in on his way to be executed by the Romans he wrote a famous letter to the trial Ian's in the early 2nd century he says quote but as some that are unbelieving say that he only seemed to die then why am I in bonds why do I long to be exposed to wild beasts do I therefore die in vain in other words why would I give my own life if he Jesus really didn't give his life now while this idea of an illusory crucified Messiah is by definition docetic this is clearly not what most Muslim exigence have espoused their literal docetism is that someone else died not an illusory Jesus the V Mufasa Dean the exigence did not maintain that Jesus was a divine phantasm that's not what Ruhollah means they maintained a substitute was crucified so what about this type of docetism is there precedent for it in the interval era and again the answer is yes in 1945 the naga hamadi library was discovered in egypt and buried in the sand was something called the second treatise of the great Seth now arimin dates it to the 3rd century and its original composition so very late compared to the New Testament Gospels nonetheless in this book we are told that a man named Simon of Cyrene II was mistakenly crucified and Jesus's place Simon of Cyrene is mentioned in the synoptic Gospels if you know your Bibles that should ring a bell he's actually mentioned in Matthew Mark and Luke as the random man the romans pulled out of the crowd and compelled to bear the cross of Jesus on the way to Golgotha interestingly the author of the fourth gospel the Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was Bastas own pants tout on O - he was carrying his own cross thus contradicting the Synoptics this gives us a glance into the the sits in Lebanon like the setting of life of the johanan community the community that offered the Gospel of John it seems that the rumor that Simon was crucified was pressing enough to have influenced the author of the Gospel of John even as early as the 1st century - right Simon out of his gospel there was also a second century Alexandrian Christian teacher named vasila DS according to state IRA næss in his against heresies facilities maintained that simon of cyrene ii was crucified after being what he says transfigure ottoman transfigured so that he was thought to be jesus jesus then assumed the likeness of simon and stood by laughing at the proceedings so here we have substitution via supernatural identity transference being taught by a popular Christian teacher in the early 2nd century in a major centre of Christian learning facilities even gives an Assad a pedigree if you will for his teaching facilities claimed that his teaching came from Glaucus who learned from Peter who learned from Jesus the question is why didn't bacilli DS just read the New Testament the New Testament clearly says that Jesus was crucified and I agree it does say that the answer is there was no New Testament the constituent books existed in their early forms as did dozens of other books Gospels and epistles etc and they varied in their popularity but the definitive 27 book Canon of Scripture was not nearly universally recognized at his time and it wouldn't be for another 250 years so by the way facilities his own magnum opus which was called the exegetical is lost to history we only know about his positions because his opponents his theological opponents wrote about him like st. Irenaeus okay moving on to the swoon theory I don't know why this is my favorite one I don't agree with it but it's my favorite anyway the swoon theory is a rather modern phenomenon it essentially states that Jesus survived the crucifixion in confessional circles it probably started with the Ahmadiyya movement whose founder mirza ghulam ahmed claimed definitively that jesus had survived the crucifixion then travelled to Kashmir where he died as an old man to this day there stands a tomb in down Trent downtown Srinagar or thousands make pilgrimage to visit the grave of Jesus in Sunni circles a contemporary of mirza ghulam ahmed name say it after met khan who's the founder of illegal university in india he explicitly endorsed the swoon theory in his tafseer this theory gained some acceptance among Western intellectuals during this time as well the earliest proponent was the German biblical scholar Karl Friedrich Bart is not Karl Barth's this is Karl Friedrich Bart who died 1792 this was towards the back end of the Age of Enlightenment in Europe thus a type of sort of rationalism rose to prominence in biblical studies which of course culminated in the monumental and highly influential quest for the historical Jesus by dr. Albert Schweitzer that you have to read if you're going to study Western religion it's a must even Friedrich Schleiermacher the founder of modern hermeneutics played with the idea that Jesus might have been reanimated after apparent death I want to give you Bart's theory though it's very interesting according to Bart the two secret disciples of Jesus the Gospel of John says Jesus at two secret disciples Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea according to Bart they weren't really Pharisees they were members of the Essenes which Bart describes as a male-only secret society of sorts and Jesus was also a member of secret society called the Essenes according to Bart now there was a group called the Essenes historically Bart by the way was a high-ranking freemason so he's in to the secret society stuff thus a plot was about to be hatched the goal was to rid the Jews of the idea of a militaristic Messiah by faking the death and resurrection of Jesus and then essentially reinterpreting Jewish messianism on purely spiritual grounds the Roman centurion standing at the foot of the cross incidentally was bribed not to break jesus's legs Jesus bowed his head as a ruse to give the appearance of death then Jesus's semi-conscious body was handed over the Joseph and Nicodemus who took him into the garden tomb and resuscitated him with healing herbs under the pretext of embalming his body after three days Jesus was able to walk and presto a resurrected Messiah interestingly this theory devoid of the conspiracy element is also very popular among contemporary Muslim apologists MIDI - Avia ali zakir naik have all espoused some form of the swoon theory it seems that they finally admitted that supernatural identity transference with its potential ethical problems its roots in Gnostic docetism and its endorsement by the indefensible gospel of barnabas is just no longer advisable so there's an admission now that the best sources to utilise are the New Testament Gospels themselves although the Gospels are half mistaken according to them their method inspired by the historical critical method and by the Jesus Seminar is an attempted extraction of the quote-unquote true Jesus from the highly theology or mythos sized New Testament Gospels and attempt to detangle historical truth from pious embellishment however their method and reality is not grounded in modern principles of historiography they simply pick and choose whatever agrees with the Quran and that's called salad-bar hermeneutics like going through a salad bar I like I like tomatoes you want some pickles according to Muslim swooned theorists Jesus in fact survived the crucifixion was then revived by his secret disciples Joseph and Nicodemus in the tomb this explains the post Easter appearances the argument continues Jesus passed out on the cross he was comatosed the Roman centurions did not check his pulse he simply looked dead enough they took him off the cross as fast as they could the skies turned dark and the Sabbath was fast approaching this explains Mark's comment that Pilate who is a professional Jew Crucifier he said that Pilate afoul Mawson he marvelled this man is dead already he's already dead after just six hours on the cross it takes days to die well apparently God hath sinned the night created a massive storm and caused an earthquake to both disperse the crowd as well as they give Jesus's friends an opportunity to quickly get him off the cross while still alive these apologists also mentioned Jesus a statement about the sign of Jonah they mentioned that Jesus was in disguise after his alleged resurrection according to Luke and John that only makes sense if you survive the cross and you fear being spotted by Jewish authorities or Roman soldiers then they point out Jesus ate food with his disciples in Luke chapter 24 to prove that he was the same Jesus because resurrected bodies become pneumatic and are no longer in need of nourishment so Gore's the argument Muslims swoon theorists also point out that when God says to Jesus in the Quran and 3:55 amimoto efika the meaning here is something like I will cause you to sleep that form the form 5 verb to Wafaa means to take one soul during sleep yet the person remains alive an ayah is cited in support of this chapter 39 verse 42 allahu yad'u ila anfusina mati ha y Letty Lambton wood FEMA Nami ha God seizes the souls at their deaths and those that do not die in their sleep for young psychology a father on a helmet and those upon whom he decreased death those upon whom he decreased death he retains war your saloon O'Hara Allah a genie mu sama and then he releases or returns the others until an appointed time there's also a hadith of Jesus a soul was returned this is the argument Jesus of Solvers returned so he could not have died it was not biological death there's also hadith in Bukhari narrated by abu qatada in ilaha ababa are washoku marina shia laura da hai nasha indeed god seizes your souls when He wills and he returns them when He wills now the context of the hadith is when some people missed a morning prayer because they overslept then prayed it later when their souls were returned to them so Jesus was merely sleeping that's the argument okay now three a affirmation of Christ's crucifixion are moving on to the third position affirmation of Christ's crucifixion figurative docetism natural biological death so this asserts now we're getting into the into more of the realm of controversy right so if you're gonna throw fruit aim high 3a this asserts that Jesus died on the cross due to being crucified a natural biological death because this was God's plan to begin with it was according to God's well pleasing or preferential will for the Messiah to die in such a way this is essentially the Christian position popular Muslim author Gerald Dirk's he says quote the Quran clearly states that Jesus Christ was not crucified end quote but notice the Quran actually says rahmatullahu wa ma salah boohoo they did not kill him nor did they crucify him the Quran does not say wa ma ot Lama su liebe the Quran does not say he was not killed nor was he crucified Muslim professor mahmoud iu who affirms the crucifixion he says would it be in consonance with God's covenant his mercy and justice to deceive humanity for so many centuries and again there's at this deception argument Lawson put it like this the point is that tafseer not the poor on denies the crucifixion now let's return to the linguistics of Tawaf I mentioned earlier Tawaf a-- is used in the quran 25 times in at least 23 of those instances it is clearly used to mean biological death go to concordance and look at the ayat for example rob bana affa divine anus abhorrent ofn a mostly mean our lord give us patience and make us die as Muslims first bill in Nevada llahi Huck for Emma nori Anika bardelli the nanny to whom so have patience indeed the promise of God is true whether we show you some of that which we promised them Oh Natalie Annika for Elena your Jarun or we cause you to die for to us is your return the primary definition of Tawaf a' is physical biological death now even Manders definition of Tawaf a' in the sun or arab Kavala who NASA God sees as the soul is ambiguous because this is also what the Quran says that God does to people who are sleeping as we said hence the swoon theories assertion that Jesus was merely sleeping the whole time however it makes perfect sense some would argue even more sense to define talofa in the floor on Jesus passages as denoting his actual death his mote physical death in one hadith Aisha refers to the actual death physical death of the Prophet peace be upon him by saying Matta Rasul Allah in another hadith describing the similar situation the same situations he said she says - Afiya Rasul Allah so she used these verbs interchangeably so when God tells Jesus in Nemo to efika using the active participle even imamat Abadi admits that this could mean I will cease your or receive your soul and cause you to die however imamat Abadi says but there's a big caveat but in that case it would only refer to Jesus's death at the end of time in the parousia in the second coming even katheer mentions a tradition in his tafseer that an early Muslim report from Wahab even says that Jesus was crucified dead for three days then resurrected by God and finally ascended to heaven he been considered however predictably outright rejects this he maintains that in me Muto efika must refer to Jesus's death at the end of time but there's a problem with what they are saying the ayah 3:55 says that God said to Jesus in Nemo to efika wha Rafi Ruka Alea I will cause you to die and raise you to myself in that order even kathira says however you have to understand this backwards namely in near Ithaca Alea what moto efika I will raise you to myself because he has to escape crucifixion then I will cause you to die much much later in the Second Coming this is an example of history on Proterra on taco demon wakaru he says I don't think however we need to be reading the Quran backwards I think it says what it clearly appears to say knows and tactical gymnastics are necessary it says I will cause you to die then I will raise you up to myself now among the Prieta body exigence 3a is the purported position of imam ja'far as-sadiq was a great great great great grandson I got to get my grades for grades great-great-great-great grandson of the Prophet peace be upon him and the teacher of Abu Hanifah and Matic eben ons and the eponym of the Jaffa D school of jurisprudence Imam at UH body does not quote from imam ja fairest FC at all possibly because there's actually a strong opinion that his tough serie the toughest field of Jaffa was actually sued anonymously ascribed to him by a much later author even Lawson calls him pseudo Jaffa it is interesting to note also that almost all 12 or exigence that followed imam ja fares time came to endorse some version of the substitution theory not JAF outers own purported opinion nonetheless Jaffa or pseudo Jafar says wallah who feel utterly here fr Kemal Rafa Avila and be ah who by being killed God raised Jesus as rank just as God raised the rank of his other prophets so this again exaltation Christology God seated Jesus on the throne of intimacy once and reunion Leo the author says Jesus is depicted as the great martyr prophet who gave his life for the sake of God Lawson points out the paradox of appearing to be nailed to a cross in humiliation but in reality being seated on a throne figuratively docetic or as for Dino Rossi said the refat or raising of Jesus mentioned in for 158 was one of rank and stature so you have this dichotomy here of what appears and what really is now notwithstanding the 12er position many Zadie and Ismaili Shia ulema upheld the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus the is Mary Lee inspired quano Safa who are sin her sense of the synthesisers of Greek philosophy in Islamic Scripture they also affirmed Jesus death crucifixion and one of their epistles called recital they paraphrase basically the Gospel of John and explicitly described Jesus's death and resurrection three days later the Ismaili philosopher Abba Watson Madrasi this is not for a Dean this is a Bahama drazi he said that Jesus is in a suit these are Aramaic terms that are Erebus sized Jesus is no suit element his human element experienced death while his la hoot his divine or eternal element survived the crucifixion because it cannot be killed and this actually sounds a lot like nestorianism which was a fifth century Christian physician that was officially condemned at the Council of Ephesus and for thirty-one Nestorius denied what's known as hypostatic union between the divine son in the human Jesus thus the divine or Laputa person of the son did not experience death only the no tsutae person of Jesus indeed some scholars trace the origin of is Mary Lee Christology directly back to mist aureus and his hypostatic distinction that's sort of just a side note there but to clarify Muhammed Rossi's position what he's saying is that the Messiah died bill just said not bill rule in the body not in the spirit and then he quotes extensively from the New Testament Gospels which he believes are accurate such as Luke who quotes Jesus is saying I say to you my friends do not fear those who can kill the body the soma but cannot do more than that or in the methey inversion do not fear those who are able to kill the body but are unable to kill the soul rather fear the one who can kill both body and soul so for these exigence Jesus cannot be killed in the full sense both soma and Ponemah both Jessa and the Ruhr both body and soul but then the objection here is who can be killed in the full sense can a person kill another person's soul perhaps another meaning is possible here Imam al-ghazali said that when surah al-hajj the martyr of divine love was being led to his execution by crucifixion mind you found guilty of blasphemy due to his Sharia Theo Pathak verbal utterances al-hallaj was singing oco-2 Looney athlete at Eve in Nutley hyah T kill me o my friends for in my death or in my killing is my life then as they were fastening him to the gibbet al-hallaj hauntingly quoted the Quran woohoo a muscle abu who were lacking should be Allah whom they did not kill them nor did they crucify him but it was made to appear so unto them what did he mean by that in other words they can kill my body but not my hood my hood my timeless aspect ie the spirit of my teaching which will abide in my disciples so al-hallaj viewed himself as a Christic anti-type of sorts the bath daddy authorities thought they had done away with al Hajj and his apparent blasphemy once and for all not knowing that by killing him they drew attention to him and by drawing attention to him they became the vehicle by which God exalted him and his message he was put on the cross he was put on the throne of his cross mahmoud i you mentioned something similar about imam hussain that through his death hussein sent a powerful message to the world outwardly apparently Hussein's head a severed head was put on a pike and paraded around various cities in Iraq yet the poet intimated his reality Shaw has two asain for saying his king so death or martyrdom as a means of spiritual ascent a speaking of lazuli I mentioned earlier that his method with respect to the New Testament Gospels was actually one of textual affirmation in other words Matthew Mark Luke and John are authentically the injeel for gazali why does las ollie take this position a position in total contrast with the vast majority of his exegetical predecessors we're Lois messin young contends and this makes sense to me that Ghazali when he studied the works of his theological opponents in this case the Botany are the is Mary Lee she are like Omaha tomorrow Z or Haneda Dean al kiram II at we aqua passages tani when he studied the works of these philosophers he actually came to be convinced of some of their positions because he was being honest so abu hamid al-ghazali who Kjetil islam affirmed the historicity of the crucifixion of jesus christ at least that's what appears to be now perhaps this type of figurative docetism is intimated in the Coptic apocalypse of Peter this was discovered at naga hamadi in 1945 it was written during the interval era the author said the savior said to me he whom you see above the cross glad and laughing is the living Jesus so the exalted Christic reality right his who lewd was laughing was seen by those with discerning insight as having been raised above the cross it continues but he into whose hands and feet they are driving the nails is his physical part which is the substitute so his Jess said his flesh is the substitute it concludes they are putting to shame that which is in his likeness so here the substitute in likeness of Jesus who died on the cross was not another person it was the flesh the Sark's or soma of Christ himself while his real or immortal aspect the transcendental gnosis that he imparted to his disciples was never and can never be killed the acts of John written in the late 2nd century suggests similar things however I would argue that a form of this position figurative docetism can also be found in the New Testament canonical Gospels Jesus says in John chapter 10 verses 17 to 19 he says for this reason the father greatly loves me that I lay down my life in order that I might receive it again no human being can take it from me and the Greek is very very in Phatak days IRA out on mmm ooh nobody can take my life from me but I lay it down willingly I have permission to lay it down and permission to receive it again I received this order from My Father in other words it is God's will for Jesus to die and Jesus has submitted himself fully to do that it is something that he's accepted voluntarily it cannot be forced upon him by human beings it doesn't defeat him it exalts him now verse 19 says something significant it says therefore again there was a schism aa division that's the Greek word schism of course the ayat result uses a verb related to FD laughs that's what skismo means there was a division among the Jews because of these words well of course there was for them i dying messiah is no Messiah Paul famously said in first Corinthians that a crucified Messiah is a stumbling block for the Jews now remember I said earlier that all four Gospels use a euphemism to describe Jesus's moment of death that he handed over yielded up or let go of his spirit this intimates Jesus is total submission and contentment with God's will the Jewish authorities thought that by killing him they invalidated him as the Messiah debasing and humiliating him in the process well Moffat eluamous Allah boohoo with a higher understanding is but they did not really kill him nor crucify him what I can should be Elohim that is only what apparently happened mamalu Huia thene and they did not kill him in reality you see God use the authorities as a vehicle to carry out his plan or as Reynolds says God outsmarted them or in the language of the Quran concerning Jesus were McCormack or Allah Allahu al mayadeen they plotted and they planned well God also planned God is the best of planners well where else does the Quran speak like this at the Battle of Badr when the Muslims killed many idolaters on the battlefield they killed them physically there was a verse that was revealed that said fell Tolu whom you did not kill them that's only what happened on the apparent you did not kill him you did not kill them fulamatu Lu whom well at inna llaha patella whom but God killed them well mara meta is a llama tawil echidna Lahore amah God intended and actually did these actions God is the doer of all actions in reality so in Nemoto Africa or Africa Aleya God took Jesus's soul because it pleased God to do so thus the killing of Jesus is not to base him it exalts him as he gave his life in obedience to God or in the words of for 1:58 Bala Rafa oh la la so this position states on the surface the Jewish authorities killed Jesus but in reality Jesus offered up his soul in obedience to God's will and God received it then three days later it was returned to him confounding his enemies well can allahu aziz and hakima and god is great and wise Jesus tells his disciples in John 7:24 do not judge according to OPS's in other words you're not judge according to outward appearance or what is apparently evidence but judge rightly and justly so he wants his people to actual - - he wants his people to actualize the greater significance of people and events stop being so superficial in John chapter 9 a man born blind is given physical sight and spiritual insight whereas the Pharisees who were born with physical sight become insightfully blind in the words of the Quran in Tamil a besouro why can't a man pure bullet if is sued or it is not their eyes that are blind but verily their hearts which are in their chests that are blind do not imitate Satan who judged Adams Worth strictly on an outward basis look deeper be insightful so the crucifixion of Jesus must be viewed through this higher realization Jesus tells his disciples in mark chapter 4 that those on the outside he says those on the outside so not them the outsiders they see but don't hear sorry they see but don't perceive they hear but don't understand they don't get it you get it at least they're supposed to get it but in mark the disciples don't quite get it okay personally I think that 3a that position I just found it is it's an interesting position but ultimately a bit too elusive textually I would rather inclined towards a more literal and plain reading of the ayah I think when the Quran says well now cut allahumma sall abou who they did not kill him nor did they crucify him I think it means that literally the Jewish authorities did not kill him or crucify him so at this point I'm gonna tell you what I think the ayah is saying but I have to stop abruptly and give you a cliffhanger and we're gonna have to go pray but this is what it is 3b affirmation of Christ's crucifixion so figurative docetism followed by divine pneumatic rapture or assumption so allow me to explain a little bit in my opinion the key to understanding what I actually love is actually saying so it's two wheel and bite at wheel I don't mean some mystical esoteric meaning I mean its original intended meaning its meaning that is out world hence the term tat wheel to find its origin the key to its tat wheel is examining its subtext and its philology now we we dealt a little bit with philology but not yet it's subtext so this next line here this one here is a line that I repeat in class and I expect my students to know quite well that the port on must be red that's why it's underlined in italicized I was going to bold it too but I thought that's too much the Quran must be read with a cognizance that it is engaging intertextual II with Jewish Christian and Near Eastern textual textual and oral traditions during the Late Antiquity the Quran in many instances expects you to know its religious subtext its back story otherwise you will misunderstand the Quran I'll give you just two quick examples out of potentially hundreds in the Quran surah surah 27 we were told that the queen of sheba walked across the glassy floor of Solomon's Palace and she thought there was a shallow pond of water there so she tucked up her skirt exposing her legs while Ke$ha Fatiha what's the point of that well be modest well what else well did you know that there was a rabbinical aramaic Midrash of the book of Esther there was a tough seal done by rabbis the book of Esther called kuruma Shaney and in this Midrash you will find more or less the same story with the added detail that the queen of sheba had hairy feet let that marinate now Tara goom's Tara gloom Shanee is dated anywhere from the big range from the 4th to the 11th century of the Common Era so the big debate of course is which texts influenced the other in Western academic circles it's likely that the Quran is critically responding to a known Jewish oral tradition that eventually became this Midrash that Solomon married a woman who was half-demon a woman who had hooves for feet thus the Quran exonerates Solomon of the charge that he that he consorted with demons of course later in the Kabbalah it explicitly says that the Queen of Sheba was the queen of the demons without knowledge of this rabbinical Midrash you would not fully understand the significance of the quranic story last example then we'll take a break the Jews in Yathrib asked the Prophet peace be upon him about villopoto nein after several days 17 verses of Surat al-kahf were revealed describing the three military expeditions of dhul-qarnain the Jews obviously knew the answers or else what's the point of asking the questions how would they check his answers the yatra by Jews had something in their possession called the Syriac legend of Alexander there are way too many points of contact between the Quran 17 ayat and the Syriac legend to leave any doubt that thought Accord 9 is Alexander the Great who died 323 before the Common Era historians would refer to the Syriac legend of Alexander as a quote pre literary tradition that the Quran is engaging with just like the Bible is on ancient Macedonian coins Alexander is depicted as having two horns Imam so ut says about door name is mu who is skander well Lamia Kuna be and his name was Alexander and he was not a prophet imam arrazi also says is mu who is scandal in fact Josephus says and the Integrity's that Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem around 3:30 before the Common Era and the temple priests showed him his own description in the Hebrew Bible that he is described symbolically in the Book of Daniel chapter 8 as a ram having two horns or in the hebrew cara Nayeem coronium in the car inane are exact cognates however many classical and most modern authorities say dhul-qarnain was an unknown prophet some angels some unknown King Cyrus the Great I've even heard Hammurabi the amorite without knowledge of various texts prevalent in the late antiquity such as a Syriac legend the antiquities of Josephus or the Tanakh the Hebrew Bible an exigent will miss the meaning of the Quran verses I do want to reiterate here again the Quran must be read with a cognizance that engaging intertextual 'i was jewish christian and Near Eastern textual and oral traditions during the Late Antiquity okay now and tractates and Hedren 43a of the babylonian gomorrah this is the talmud the rabbi said yes you in the issues what they call Jesus Yeshua's hanged on the eve of Passover hanging being a euphemism for crucifixion however the rabbi's are insistent that Jesus was stoned to death first and crucified post-mortem and this is how the worst of malefactors were punished according to Jewish Holika law the author of John's Gospel says explicitly as well that Jesus was crucified potus kua to pasca that on the eve of Passover however he was not stoned first according to the Gospels and it was the Romans who carried out the execution al biet at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities the Sanhedrin Peter Schafer says in his book Jesus in the Talmud he says I interpret this and by this he means what the Talmud says as a deliberate misreading of the New Testament reclaiming Jesus as it were for the Jewish people and proudly acknowledging that he was right rightly and legally executed for being a Jewish heretic in effect in effect saying we did this and we want the credit for it the Babylonian Talmud explicit Jesus passages according to Schaffer were first composed in the late 3rd or early 4th centuries during the interval era these are quote sophisticated counter narratives to the stories of Jesus's life and death in the gospels and narratives that presuppose a detailed knowledge of the New Testament I would contend that the Quran makes the same presupposition it often assumes a full knowing reader a reader that is familiar with the biblical and Near Eastern traditions that it is critically responding to its religious subtext its back story Reynolds says that is a subtle but also reflects the quote anti-jewish polemic in Syria Christian writings during the Late Antiquity for example Jacob of saroo who died 5:21 seee a Christian father aramaic father he refers to that as quote a people who boast that they tied a man to the wood therefore I had to subtle but 4:157 is a corrective a repudiation of rabbinical Talmudic tradition which stated in boast pride and ridicule we killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary the Messenger of God it is also an affirmation of the Syriac Christian tradition rooted in the New Testament again itís Allah is a both is both a corrective of rabbinical Talmudic tradition as well as an affirmation of Syriac Christian tradition the Quranic response to the Talmud is woolmarket allahu wa Mossel Abu who noticed the order and the apparent only apparent redundancy they did not kill him by stoning says the subtext nor crucify him after post-mortem well that can should be Elohim but the event of the actual crucifixion was made dubious unto them the crucifixion mentioned in the injeel or the fourfold gospel enshrined in the new testament in the same tractate in the talmud the rabbi said that mary they call her miriam the hairdresser quote played the harlot with carpenters god forbid Jesus is called ben pandera in the talmud Pandora was the name of a Roman soldier and biological father of Jesus according to the Talmud thus Mary is slandered now the subtextual ground of ayah to sub as well as its predecessor ayatollah bhutan verse 156 comes clearly interview that these verses are linked semantically they both begin with what holy him while Baku free him up over him Allah Mariama Boonton and edema were poley him in catalan messiah he said 'no maryam rasool allah their link semantically they're also linked historically they're linked historically both ayat of surah and ayat al baton were intended to counter the Talmudic rabbinical claims that Jesus was born and that he was stoned and crucified post-mortem as the worst of criminals were put to handle were punished these Talmudic counter-narratives are both false this is what the quran is saying the context of these ayats are clear read the entire section I don't believe that they're denying the well-established Christian nativity and crucifixion narratives quite the contrary they are supporting the Christian narratives as well as supporting the prevailing anti-jewish Christian discourse they are denying the Jewish rabbinical Nativity and crucifixion counter narratives so these are counter counter narratives or they're corrected counter narratives many would contend that the Quran and hadith actually affirm the text of the New Testament Gospels as being the authentic injeel again this is quite controversial and this is usually at the the time in the speech where people kind of check out theologically but this is the this is the position of imam arrazi imam al-ghazali imam al bukhari classical exigence held this position that the tariff the corruption with respect to christianity is not of the text is not of the nose of the New Testament Gospels but rather the Milani the proto Orthodox or Trinitarian exegesis of the New Testament Gospels for example the Quran refers to the Christians as a dual injeel now why would the Quran refer to the Christians as the people of the gospel if they don't have the actual gospel the Quran says while Yakama halal injili bima anzala who fee let the people of the gospel rule by what God revealed therein but how could the apply rulings from a lost or irretrievably corrupted text the Quran calls itself Musa dick and mo Haman confirmer and protector of the Torah and the gospel we were told in Buhari that waraqa bin nawfal can rajulun 10 a surah a man who was a man who converted to Christianity yeah Cara Oh al in G bill arabiya who used to read the gospel in Arabic now was waraqa reading some now lost injeel archetype written by Jesus himself in Syriac no he was obviously reading the New Testament Gospels but the Quran and hadith used a singular al-injeel rather than the plural and a G oh well I would contend that waraqa is most likely reading and translating tations famous gospel harmony known as the diya tessarin from Syriac into Arabic according to Griffith the diya tessarin may well have been the best known form of the gospel among Arabic speaking Christians in the quran z' milieu this is why the quran says gospel in the singular it is referencing tations dia Tessa ROM the SIA to celeb actually affirms that Jesus was in fact crucified but he was but he was alive when put on the cross and dead when taken off now that's essentially the Christian narrative but here's the twist I think not dead due to being crucified Jesus offered up his soul his Ponemah his rule and God intervened and received it in full directly before natural biological death could set in as evidenced in the language of the Gospels as well as the port on in other words he was raptured by God the modern the learned modernish EE exigent a table at every suggests that the meaning is that Jesus did not die by their hands but the matter appeared so unto them that should be Halle whom Amuro so then John 10:18 is quite literal who days IRA out a nap amou no human being can take my soul from me that's quite literal not figurative God intervened directly and took his life took Jesus's life before natural death could set in in Luke 23 46 Jesus's last words were father into your hands I commend my spirit and of course the term father does not mean literal father in the sense that he shares an essence with God I mean this whole Unitarian reading of his text that we don't have to time to go into but basically up up means rub in the New Testament think of it like that father into your hands I commend my spirit then Luke says having said this XA pannu sin his soul or spirit exited him now a person who goes into hypovolemic shock and then dies from asphyxiation on the cross would not be able to make a sound let alone speak inaudible and intelligent sentence in other words he died on the cross but was not killed by the cross he did not die at the hands of his enemies that's what they thought he was raptured up by God directly yeah ISA amimoto a fika wah Rafi hookah he Leia now Jesus's name in Aramaic is Yeshua according to the lexicon Strong's Concordance it means he is saved it is a shorter form of yahushua joshua which means whose salvation is adonai according to GC Gnaeus and I'm reading Adonai for the Tetragrammaton yad hey voo a psalm 20 verse 6 says this in Hebrew it says David writes at a yachty qihoo xie adonai mushy ho ya na who mushy my food show of Billroth Yasha yamino David writes I know that God saves his Messiah he shall hear him from his holy heaven with the saving power of his right hand God saved his Messiah from being killed by his enemies the synoptic Gospels tell us that just before death Jesus cried out with a phone a mega lay a loud voice what does this Psalm say he shall he shall hear him from his holy heaven in Psalm 91 a messianic Psalm according to the New Testament God is the speaker and he says because he has set his love the word for love here in the Hebrew is a shock which is cognate to ish according to Jesse Gnaeus intensive love because he has intensively loved me I will deliver him and set him on high kiya - me because he has known my name Ukraine e ven a who he shall call upon me and I shall answer I will be with him in trouble I would deliver him and honor him with long life in the words in Hebrew is Oresteia meme extended days I shall deliver him satisfy him and show him my salvation and that word their salvation here at the very end that in Hebrew is Yeshua which is aspirated which means something like salvation by God is etymologically related to the name of Jesus Yeshua the objection here from a Christian perspective would be the following in the synoptic Gospels like in mark chapter 9 Jesus makes clear passion predictions he says that the Son of Man referring to himself will be delivered unto sinful men and a pocketing Newson out on and they will kill him now given the premise that the Quran is affirming the text of the Gospels under 3a this passion prediction can be affirmed as well they killed his body not the spirit of his message no problem figurative docetism under 3b divine rapture the synoptic passion predictions become more difficult to reconcile and we seem to be at an impasse this doesn't invalidate this position I mean the same apparent inconsistency is found in the Bible you can ask Christians how do they reconcile mark 9:31 with John 10:18 mark 9:31 says they will kill him Jesus referring to himself essentially saying they're going to kill me John 10:18 no one can take my life from me how do you reconcile these well Christian exigence will say well the contradiction is only apparent when Jesus says no one can take my life from me what he means is they can't take they can't they can take his life from him but it's only because he's willing to let them do that right so under 3 B they will kill him yeah and their perceptions and their intentions but in reality no one can take his life from him in other words there's a way of resolving the apparent contradictions now historians like airman by the way do not believe that the synoptic fashion predictions are historical they believe that Jesus's predictions of a future of man to judge the world our historical because early Christians would not have made those up and Jewish apocalypticism was everywhere at the time however after Jesus's death historians say early Christians made Jesus claim in Matthew Mark and Luke that he also was the son of man who was meant to die so they had to justify a dead Messiah and then the future son of man becomes Christ in his second coming almost done two more slides now some may object here and say well there are no references that Jesus's death a resurrection in the Quran well I'd say look again 355 in nee moto efika or off you okay Aleya oh jesus i will cause your death directly that's explicit and raise your soul to myself or exalt you in degree well one mortal hero coming and levena CAFO rule and purify you from those who have disbelieved in other words exonerate you from the claims of your enemies what were the claims of his enemies that he was a false messiah because he died he was killed well how did God exonerate him by raising him from the dead I mean this could be an implicit reference to the resurrection but explicitly in 1933 was salam-o-alaikum Oh Willie - I oma amou - why oh ma Oh barafu hiya peace be upon me the day I was born the day that I die in the day that I am raised up to life the day that I am resurrected the standard exegesis here is that Jesus is referring to the general resurrection at the end of time and this is why God says the same thing about John the Baptist 18 verses earlier but I don't really know about that I don't find that very compelling why would the Quran mention this specifically about Jesus and John if it's not unique to them at all if it's going to happen to everyone to me it makes more sense to interpret these as specific references to resurrections of both Jesus and John at that time in other words the Quran indicates that John was also resurrected and guess what according to the New Testament Gospels there was indeed a rumor that John the Baptist been resurrected mark says in 6:14 elegan they were saying that John the Baptist was raised from the dead Herod Antipas actually thought that Jesus was the resurrected Baptist when Jesus was at when Jesus asked his disciples who do people say that I am in mark chapter 8 they responded some people say John the Baptist others say Elijah others say one of the prophets that people knew that John was executed by Herod Antipas so here they mean a resurrected John because that was the rumor also in Matthew 27 we were told that many hagion holy people or Saints were resurrected when Jesus was resurrected thus John could have been one of these hagion thus John and Jesus mirror each other quite nicely in the Quran they were both born miraculously they were both vehemently opposed by corrupt authorities both died quite young and both were resurrected as signs of God last slide okay this is the last part of the lecture if you've been listening you no doubt have a very pressing question in mind a question that has soteriological implications and that is why why was it necessary for the Messiah to die like this why was it pleasing to God to take the life of his Christ in such a way now we know the Christian answer he vicariously atoned for the sins of humanity establishing a new covenant with his blood as promised I will not critique this dogma in this lecture I think it's sufficient to say that that will not jive with the quran or 'the islamic theology as far as I know in Islam forgiveness is through repentance and grace no animal or human sacrifice is necessary or as the songwriter said Harun sellers does a man really have to die for me to be forgiven or is that just a lie my God if the man was innocent does that really make sense my guilt is my expense my god just some lines from Mother sellers I thought were beautiful however while there is no concept of vicarious atonement in Islam as I understand Islam in other words there's no possibility of someone literally taking your sins and be punished for you quite literally there is a concept of redemptive suffering redemptive suffering and here I recommend the book of the work of Mahmoud Ayub he says redemptive suffering may be seen as direct intercession or direct example and I think Jesus provided both as far as direct example goes he provided a living example of virtue selflessness courage patience an assertive non-violence to be emulated by his disciples and later followers one must be willing to give his life for his faith as Tertullian famously said the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church as far as direct intercession goes think about what Caiaphas the high priest said according to John chapter 11 Caiaphas said it is expedient for one man to die to spare the nation and if Jesus is left alone he says all will believe in him and the Romans will take away our place and nation place here probably a reference to the temple the author of John's Gospel says a Caiaphas did not speak this from himself but actually prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation the high priest fears for Israel's national existence so as logic is as follows if enough Jews begin declaring Jesus as the rightful king of Israel the king of the Jews a title saturated with political ramifications then Rome will destroy the temple and crush the entire nation it would be better to placate the Romans now and throw them a scapegoat it's better for one man to take one for the team as it were so Jesus's self-sacrifice ransomed as it were Israel from national catastrophe by giving his life he effectively saved his nation a savior in this sense more importantly his death allowed world Jewelry in Palestine and to hear the gospel via apostolic mission the Apostle the Apostles being extensions of Christ himself in fact a specific apostolic mission is actually mentioned in the Quran surah yaseen were three more saline apostles of Jesus according to classical commentators are sent to a certain City eben kefir says that the city was called Antakya Antioch and he identifies the three apostles as Shamoon Johanna and Boulos Peter John and Paul perhaps the Quran has Acts chapter 13 in mind here where a group of disciples Apostles Paul among them go to Antioch forty years later after Jesus the same duration of Israel's wilderness wandering under Moses a biblical generation Israel's stay of execution if you will end it with her almost complete rejection of her Messiah and Rome was finally unleashed upon her destroying her temple in other words Jesus's Shafa his intercession for his people postponed the wrath of God for one generation until finally the temple was destroyed by general Titus thus marking the end of the messianic ly earned and divinely granted grace period only in this figurative majazi sense does Christ you know died for the sins of many only in this figurative sense can Isaiah 53 be understood which is quoted all over the New Testament by John Peter Paul matthew n' and mark in fact many early Christian father's Church Fathers interpreted the destruction of the temple on the ninth of of and 70 of the Common Era as divine wrath upon the Jewish nation and the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant for their rejection of Yeshua HaMashiach of Jesus Christ these include clement origin and Tertullian this is not politically correct to say anymore by the way Jesus himself predicted the inevitable destruction of the temple in the synoptic Gospels explaining it with reference to Daniel chapter 9 where Gabriel tells Daniel Eucharist Yemi mushiya the Messiah will be cut off that is to say killed or have his life ended abruptly so Jesus's death serve three purposes as I see it it provided an exemple are of virtue to follow it postponed God's wrath upon the Jewish nation saving his nation in that sense they gave Jews and Gentiles the opportunity to hear the gospel via apostolic mission and believe in Christ he end so we have an open mic here if you'd like to step up and ask the question you have a comment we can do that we do have until 9 o'clock there's also people watching or listening on the livestream that have some questions as well I'm gonna go ahead and take one from online yes sir all right from Facebook we have the question why did three positions develop on the verse why isn't it clear and crisp leaving no doubt on the topic why is no authentic hadith present on the subject isn't the son of the means of explaining the Quran that's the question I've had for 20 years I don't know it's well I indicated this in my initial presentation that the verse itself is is enigmatic well that can should be hala home very enigmatic mysterious there's different ways of dealing with this this portion of the ayah and then the whole idea while moppet aloo masala boohoo I mean there are some that say yes the Jews did not kill them to crucify him the Romans did that right and you'll find this opinion giulio bisetti sani who's a catholic islam assist he takes that opinion he actually believes up the quran as a divine revelation and perfectly in line with the the four gospels so i think it's just a nature of the ayah and the thing is not really important for us it's very important for Christians for Jesus to die because Paul says if Christ isn't raised then Christianity is in vain your faith is invalid it's in vain but for us I mean a profit dying or not I mean profits were cut in half profits were tortured right profits were decapitated it's not so much of a big issue for us just as you know who was the son to be sacrificed Ishmael or Isaac believe it or not a lot of Muslims don't know there's an XD laugh and that there's a very strong opinion that it was Isaac to be sacrificed not Ishmael this is the opinion of eben miss rude and Sedna Ali and these were people who know what they're talking about so that's a genuine if T laugh so it doesn't really matter yeah if it has to be Isaac because he is the progenitor of the Jewish nation and and it has to be Isaac for Christians because he's an ancestor of Christ but for us either one is a prophet their beloved either way so I don't think it's just a big issue why is there no hadith I don't know I don't know yes thank you for representation hmm I would like to ask how should we think off the Bible in terms of how could we think of it as a revelation because we know for example that Quran has been revealed the Quran surah Anam and we know that Moses so awesome it has received it in a plate or in place how do we how do we think of yeah the Bible yeah I think I did your question yeah so there's if you study or alumina Quran there's there's different types of Revelation right so you have wahi which is prophetic revelation right so the Quran from a confessional Muslim perspective is considered wahi if system of voter ba the very words of God right and that's analogous to the Jewish position on the with respect to the Torah Genesis Exodus Leviticus numbers Deuteronomy are not the words of Moses they are the words of God spoken through Moses now what you have in the rest of the Tanakh of the Hebrew Bible you have the prophets and writings the prophets like Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel so on and so forth they're at a lower grade of of revelatory authority there's actually a hierarchy of Revelation they're still inspired but they're not the very words of God they're the very voice of God so it's still a holy text right so for example something analogous in our tradition would be like the hadith the hadith are generally not considered to be the very words of God not even the hadith Qudsi or some take the hadith Qudsi to be in that category as well but it's inspiration that's put in the heart of the Prophet and he is choosing the articulation right and then there's something and then there's something called aha ahá is non prophetic revelation and this is mentioned in our sources well hey - allow me Musa the Quran says we gave aha we reveal to the mother of Moses the dominant opinion is that the mother of Moses her name was Yahoo bed that's her actual name it's not her name is not mentioned in the Quran but in the tourism her name is Yahoo bed the dominant opinion is that she's not a prophet per se there is an opinion that she was but they're the stronger opinions that she's not a prophet but but Allah said well hey naughty let with me Musa Oh Hannah so the Erla must say that's a ha that's non prophetic revelation it's still a lower degree than prophetic revelation so the way we can think about like the New Testament Gospels is really sort of a combination of all three of those it's conceivable that in the Gospels you have God speaking to Christ in Christ quoting God you have Christ speaking inspired speech and then these four books were written by apostles apparently the Koran says well oh hey - Elin Hawaii gene that we gave a ha to the disciples right is this a reference in Matthew Mark Luke and John is the Quran confirming that these four books are written by apostles of Jesus and that they were given iha right different degrees of Revelation so not necessarily Matthew Mark Luke and John as being the very words of God right but it inspired text so that it's a broader way of thinking about revelatory text yes sir while ago so I had a question with regard to swoon theory then for those who believe that Jesus had a natural death then what about I can I'm sorry Mona so people who believed that Jesus had a natural death like in this win/win theory then how a day like reconcile had needs that at the end of time Jesus comes back alive from the sky how would he assume that he had a natural death and in spirit gets invited embodied again in another body and comes back towards the end of time or so the swoon theory is that he survived on the cross right but then he eventually he they assumed that he must have had an actual death on earth so you're talking about Muslims our position yeah so the Muslim position is he swooned from the cross and then he died a natural death I mean that's at least the Ahmadiyya I don't and then the Ahmadiyya believed that that he came back in a new incarnated form in olam Mirza Ahmed claimed to be the second coming of Jesus and also the Mende so he it's a twofer apparently so so yeah the body died but there's the spirits you know because the spirit doesn't die the spirit leaves the body and it was reincarnated into the musical I'm after that so yeah Imam al-ghazali seems to affirm the death of Christ that's what it's that's what he seems to be saying because he wrote this book Rudra Jamil the refutation of the divinity of Jesus through the gospel so he's taken this as the got Matthew Mark Luke and John he's calling the gospel maybe he's humoring the text and saying okay let's just say this is for argument's sake this is the gospel this is how I would argue against the divinity of Jesus because he sort of does that what the to have a bit of philosophy so this sort of takes their premises the Abyssinian or the Hellenistic Neoplatonic philosopher is it sort of uses their own method against that maybe that's what he's doing with the what did you mean but apparently the way that many scholars will read lazuli is that he's affirming the text of the New Testament and that includes the crucifixion or Passion narratives he said like so sorry so so let me just finish so that when he died his soul was taken and then and then there will be a there was an ascension Jesus eventually ascended and then he'll come back at the end of time yeah and will he die again I don't know yes so my question is about the Gospels so as a Muslim were taught obviously that the Quran the scripture has never changed and with the Gospels is their original text for the Gospels that exist today like what like so for my my question is like Imam Ghazali when he or whoever believes that the Gospels are may have been misinterpreted but they're consistent with the Quran yeah so it's consistent to which grips because there's many translations of the gospel yeah so which are they are there originals that people can go back to you like in the Quran well as far as originals go it seems like what the Quran is saying is that what the Christians have in their possession in the seventh century in the late antique in the Arabian Peninsula represents an accurate rendering of the message of Christ it is the gospel so scholars have surmised that the immediate references to tations deity sarong so tations the attest Iran is a translation of the Greek into Syriac the Greek they rich the original Matthew Mark Luke and John are in Greek they're not in Syriac or an aramaic but they're translated back into or translated into Aramaic and that seems to be that was the most popular form of the New Testament Gospels in Arabia during that time as far as originals go yeah there are no extant originals I mean the oldest the oldest the oldest manuscript if anything from any gospel is called P 52 which is about this big it's the size of a credit card it's you know six verses of John chapter 18 and it's dated to like 120 125 so they say 150 but something we have to also be cognizant of that there was a strong oral tradition I mean those were oral right so most people were illiterate I mean 90 even airman says that even in 5th century Athens at the height of you know Greek civilizations 90 95 percent of people were illiterate it was an oral culture so these things were transmitted orally now the danger with orality is that things are added and subtracted and expanded upon things like that that's why you have manuscripts that are I mean there's 5500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that date from the earliest period into the Middle Ages and no two of them are identical granted the vast vast vast majority of the differences are spelling errors they're due to parrot lapses you know scribe copying in his I would skip a line and things like that they're very very minut once in a while you do find deliberate changes and things like that for doctrinal reasons so it seems like what the Quran is saying is that you know that there were attempts made to change the Word of God right but eventually those things were discovered by the Scholastic community and corrected that seems to be what it's saying and that's a contentious issue but there's no originals as far as like even original core ons you know with Monty codices apparently there were five to nine of these and there are some candidates I mean you know did the Topkapi Museum some claim that that's an original with Monty manuscript but nothing's been verified for certain right so but you have to remember that there's there's strong orality right I mean people memorize the text they're literally writing the text from memory so I hope that it's just five questions so isn't isn't problematic that something could get lost in translation like I understand obviously having an oral tradition and writing it down decades centuries later but going back to the the Gospels yeah it's it's certainly possible to be lost in translation but one could argue that the the overall teaching of Christ is preserved in for example tations the attesa Rome sure there might be a blown translation here and there it doesn't affect the overall a general message the gospel right alright thank you very interesting yeah thank you this already huh wanna come on I got two part question actually Ronnie's a and the answer you were saying and the first question says the Christian believed the Romans killed Jesus Christ huh one part but I think in the New Testament in first there's the region it says chapter 2 verse 15 it says the Jews killed Lord Jesus Christ and all the prophets indeed the Jews are enemy of God an enemy of humanity if they're believed of the Christian is the Jews killed God the second part of my question is why their books he's part of the book of the Bible which is Old Testament and Torah because if this really they think they are killing their God there should be separate books like take the Gospels obey they don't book so that's my question yeah thank you so yeah just to reiterate part of the question is there's a there's a verse in first Thessalonians who's written by Paul which is Paul's earliest letter by consensus or near consensus of historical scholars where Paul describes the Jews as he says they are they killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets they please not God and are contrary to all men right and some have said that this is the most anti-semitic statement ever made in any text now textual criticism reveals that this verse was probably added later believe it or not and there's a there's a growing consensus actually that first Thessalonians 2:14 was indeed added later by an anti-jewish probe Pauline polemicist it doesn't seem to jive with the rest of what's authentically pas line so that that's one thing I mean it seems weird that Paul would say that because Paul himself as ethnically Jewish and he's a he's he was a Benjamin ight Pharisee Jesus was Jewish his mother was Jewish all of the disciples were Jewish and this is part of the problem also with the Gospel of John that has baffled scholars for many years in the Gospel of John the enemies of Jesus are called hoy you'll die Oy that's it the Jews the Jews it's like wait a minute Jesus and Mary and in the disciples you know Jesus went to the upper room after the after the resurrection and they had to lock the doors because they were afraid of the Jews well there's Jews inside there the disciples you know so that seems to indicate that that text the Gospel of John was written later at a time when there was a definitive split between church and synagogue that there were Jews and there were Christians and most Christians were probably greco-roman I mean those were those obviously the people that were converting the quickest as far as the Old Testament being sacred texts so this just entertained that first Thessalonians 2:14 is written by Paul why did the Christians retain the Hebrew Bible well it's because the Hebrew Bible reveals the Christ event right the the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed so that's part of a heritage also Romans did not like trendy new things they wouldn't believe in things that are trendy and new they like things that are based in antiquity so far for Christians to come into Rome and say there's a new religion there was a divine incarnation the logos made flesh named Jesus who died for our sins they would say when did this happen this happened a couple of years ago okay get out of my face that's new and trendy and modern you have to anchor something in antiquity so the Christians by retaining the testament albeit you know many of the laws have been abrogated they they fulfill that demand for antiquity with a greco-roman audience now certainly Marcion there was an early christian and first end of the first century very popular Christian preacher named Marcion sometimes his name is pronounced Martian but I call him Marcion I think he was from Planet Earth his opinion was that that God of the Old Testament is a different God that's a different he was a by theist Jesus is the real God the god of the Old Testament is the Demiurge he is a weak God he's the one who created this terrible world where there's sin and suffering and wars and pestilence but Jesus is the real God so he was by theistic he was vehemently anti-jewish right and he did not want anything to do with the Old Testament he wanted to he was actually the first Christian to ever propose a New Testament canon Marcion he said let's use the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul but not like Matthew or anything like that that's that's too Jewish you know Martin Luther incidentally also wanted to revise the cannon in a sixteenth century he didn't like the book of James because that was that's too Jewish he called it an epistle of straw and so Luther's positions prompted the ecumenical council the Council of Trent where the Catholic Church definitively said the canon is closed don't talk about the Canon right so your question is well why do the Jews that's that's a concern that like Marcion had who bought into this idea that the Jews you know they're now accursed by God the Covenant has revoked I mean that was a standard Christian position anyway that the Covenant has been revoked but it's a different God Jesus as a new God Jesus is the the real God I should say but there are other passages in the New Testament I mean there's the argument yeah the Jews didn't kill God the Romans did right that's like saying you know the guy who shot the other guy he didn't do it the gun if you read the New Testament it's very very clear that the enemies of Christ are the are the Jewish authorities not saying the Jewish people and we're not saying there's some blood curse that runs you know throughout the centuries right if you just look at the text from historical and literary perspective it's very clear that Jewish its enemies that Jesus's enemies are the religious authorities in fact Pilate the Roman governor in the New Testament the way that he's presented as this like this weakling who's just being manhandled by these these the Jewish high priests you know just cowering and being afraid of them and you know at one point you know Pilate in the Gospel of John he actually because he interviews Jesus three times and he says I don't find anything wrong with him you know judge him according to your own law and they say no you have to crucify him if you don't crucify him you're no friend of Caesar so at one point Pilate is so afraid he looks to Jesus and he says tell me what to do and then Jesus says to him he's and then you know Pilate says to Jesus he says I have power to release you or crucify you and then Jesus says to Pilate you have no power over me except that it was given to you from above but the one who led you but the one who led me to you has the greater sin any meaning you're just a tool in this these people are the enemy the ones who led me to you this mob here these leaders right now if you read Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Pilate is very very different than that Pilate was a bar it was a brutal governor who would execute people at the drop of a hat without trial he would stamp anything out in five minutes you know so this idea that he's being manhandled and he's trying to save Jesus it doesn't seem to work historically and then you have the you know the the statement in Matthew where Jesus is being tried and Pilate you know he comes out again and he says you know it's Passover and I want to release a prisoner as an act of goodwill so who do you want me to release to you Barabbas a known brigand or Jesus and then the crowd you know sort of cries you know release Barabbas and killed Jesus right so then Pilate he washes his hands and Matthew and he says I am free of the blood of this innocent man the author is telling us at Matthew Rome had nothing to do with this really right and then on top of that you Caiaphas he says may his blood be on us and our children after us right so that verse was used to justify pogrom all throughout the Middle Ages anti-jewish pogroms that these are Christ killers michalak Church had to eventually apologize to the Jewish people for that but if you if you saw the movie The Passion of the Christ which I don't recommend but I had to watch it for research many many times and it couldn't eat for a week after that but this scene is in the movie where you know he washes his hands and then you hear Caiaphas in the background and Aramaic say may his blood be upon us and our children but didn't Gibson doesn't translate that you know but it's in it's in the movie the most notorious statement in the New Testament you know so anyway can I take another question from ya sorry to the person in the front sorry in contrast to Paul's statement in the New Testament quote for the for without the shedding of blood no forgiveness of sin how does God forgive sins in Islam what does the sinner do after sinning one question Christian wider writer wrote that Muslims are slaves to works in order to be forgiven which will always be flawed before a perfect God and therefore futile so Christians have grace through the sacrifice of the perfect Christ but is perhaps the qur'an's lack of crucifictorious this perhaps an intentional arrow pointing to a more expansive path and means of bloodless salvation yeah so this is a very common straw man that's used to characterize Islam that that Muslims by and large they believe that by good works they shall be reconciled unto God and they'll go to heaven so this this is not correct this is this is not a belief that's found as far as I know a normative Islamic theology the Prophet himself said no man has entered into paradise by his works not even you not even me except that my Lord envelops me in mercy this hadith no one can work their way to heaven salvation and Islam is through grace you know you sin against God you make Toba it's called teshuva in Hebrew and if it's sincere and there's certain requisites and the Catholics have these things too by the way there's repentance and Catholicism there's a way to fall out of grace and Catholicism there are mortal sins that'll take you to hell so there's you know there's contrition which is madama which is a type of brokenness you're supposed to feel when you sin after after your sin and you're making repentance and then there's a Zima or there's resolution never to return to the sin these are requisites of Toba and so when one does that one has a good opinion of God that that he or she has been forgiven no one has to die no blood has to be shed so even Jesus and I mean it depends what gospel you read in in the Gospel of Luke Jesus doesn't die for anyone sins and his teaching has nothing to do with I carries a tone meant read Luke chapter 15 right this is the travel narrative of Luke the parable of the prodigal son so Jesus says there's a man who has two sons one of them stays with him the other one goes out and is a mustard off' right he is someone who you know spoils all of his you know possessions and lives a life of sin and he ends up you know sleeping next to pigs in a pig pen and then after some time this son returns the prodigal son returns right and his father sees him at a distance and and they start running towards each other with open arms and they begin to hug that's the end of the parable what is Jesus teaching here vicarious atonement he's teaching Toba he's teaching repentance right if you turn reorient yourself to your heavenly father as it were he will Opie will welcome you with open arms this is the teaching of Judaism Jews do not believe that do not believe in a literal transference of sin upon any animal or person is not a Jewish belief now on Yom Kippur Yom Kippur to two goats one goat was sacrificed one was led out into the wilderness that was just an outward symbolical sign of what's supposed to be happening in wordly true repentance was internal it's not that they believed that their sins were literally transferred upon a goat no one believes that so when this when the temple was destroyed judaism doesn't end there still Toba right because if that was true and there's no more temple and we can't we can't you know we can't sacrifice on Yom Kippur then I guess there's no forgiveness of sin anymore nobody took that position because repentance is internal that's an outward sign of forgiveness the idea that someone else can take your sin literally is not a Jewish idea it is a Hellenistic idea so you know hellenism is a massive massive phenomenon that's swept over the entire Near East and and so and it was very popular so you have you know in in Persia you have Persian religion that took elements of Hellenism an element of a dying and rising Savior man God it's called Mithra ISM in Egypt the existing Egyptian religion also took Hellenistic elements of a dying and rising Savior man God and that was Osiris and it appears that even in Palestine a small Jewish sect combined elements of Judaism with Hellenistic religion and those are sort of the origins of Christianity at least that's what a many historians would contend that this idea of vicarious atonement right literal sort of blood magic if you will is is something that is foreign to Judaism the teaching of the Old Testament is clear Ezekiel 18:20 the soul that sins it shall die meaning spiritually the wickedness of the wicked the iniquity of the son shall not be upon the father nor shall the iniquity of the father be upon the son the wickedness of the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him but if the wicked would turn from their sin and do that which is lawful and right he shall surely live he shall not die and the word for turn here is related to the word teshuva Toba this is Old Testament teaching right so yeah I mean you can say well in the Gospel of John behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world yeah that seems to be what John is saying but it certainly is not what Luke was saying if John is even saying that that this idea that I mean you can you can read that passage in John as being what I stated earlier is Jesus being sort of a a ransom postponing the wrath of God upon his nation in that sense he's the Lamb of God so it is 9:00 time flies when you're speaking gospel in Torah and speaking Quran notice I said Quran with a K I don't know why I did then but that's what happens I guess who's this can it can I sneak in one more question yes if people are willing if you have to go you can get up and leave I won't be offended I promise yes there was several people asking about the status of Alexander the Great yeah was he a believer doesn't the text sir Oh keV shows that he is a righteous and just person but Alexander's popular history does not show this yeah so that's that's a I don't know if I have a good answer for that you know the movie there's a movie that was made about Alexander in 2004 or something my Oliver Stone I believe was a director and the Greek government wanted to sue him for defamation because Oliver Stone presented Alexander the Great as you know his assumption was this is pre-christian there are no morals and you know people were you know they were doing a bunch of crazy things at the time so he was just a man of his time and they said no that's inaccurate we don't believe that about Alexander Alexander was a student of Aristotle a direct student of Aristotle Aristotle was the father of virtue ethics and his student is Alexander the Great and according to Josephus and there's obviously a bit of issue with Josephus but according to him Alexander came into Jerusalem as I said and he read a text and Daniel that described him there's even an opinion that Alexander might have even converted to monotheism at that time it's possible you know so he might have been a believer in the God of Israel who is God who is a law right not that he became a Jew but a righteous Gentile and maybe this is why the photon is praising him hello Adam I don't know but I'll leave it at that Sokolov here on thank you [Applause] you

Channel: Zaytuna College

Views: 80,129

Keywords: zaytuna college, academic, muslim, ali ataie, crucifixion, jesus, islam, religion, lecture, berkeley, california, christianity

Id: 09-JthSnyic

Length: 127min 24sec (7644 seconds)

Published: Thu May 23 2019