The subject was about death by crucifixion not death in general.
But can you tell me where in the Qu'ran does it say that there was a difference between their attempt to "slay" Jesus, from their attempts and successes in slaying the prophets?
Then your going to be eluded alot more.
Thank you for the heads up.
I knew you were, I was thinking you may have forgotten about it. The whole point to the verses is that they were applying rational from their knowledge of the Messiah from their Tanakh, obviously from those mockeries they knew the Messiah could not have been put to death in such a humiliating way.
And where exactly in the passage does it say that this is their rationale? The passage merely implies their disbelief, where they say, "he saved others..." Did Jesus ever save anyone from the crucifixion? NO! So how could they be alluding to the crucifixion, when they told him to save himself?
Jesus himself said this, "No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, Physician, heal yourself!" (Luke 4:23)
There are no basis for arguing that they wanted him to come down from the cross, because that is not the way the Messiah will die. Their argument was, 'if God is on your side, then you will not die.' Furthermore, the fact that the Messiah was believed to be the one to sit on the throne of David, then a dead Messiah certainly won't fulfill that, can he? So, if he is the Messiah, the Son of God, His Chosen One, how can he then die?
That was their mistake, of course, that they did not understand that he had to die!
the Arguement is based on what the Torah says. This was the final confirmation if he was a messiah and prophet of G-D o not.
Well, the prophets did die, many of them at the hands of the Jews. That does not deny that they were prophets, does it?
Yes, you say the crucifixion, but that is not existent in any of the texts, not one says that they argued that the Messiah could not die on the cross; their argument was that the Messiah had to sit on the throne of David, therefore, it was not reasonable to expect him to die.
Thank you. Then my arguement was not just solely based on his enemies but but also those who believes he was the Messiah rejected him being crucified cause such a death wish could not have befalling the Messiah.
Uh? LOL!
They were originally Jews correct. But even the Jews who believed in him as the Messiah became divided among them selves about him.
I am not sure what is your point. I said there were Jews who believed, and by this I am not referring to anyone who believes that he was not crucified, I am talking solely of those who believed he was crucified.
Now if I quoted that out of context it would sond like the Jews we acknowledging him as the Messiah but in the context it clearifies it was a mockery right ?
In the first line, you can see that it says that they don't believe, there is no way to mistake that. The previous verses say they don't believe, and the following verses say they don't believe.
Where is the confusion in that? None.
But here is the Surah I quoted:
Surah 4:157 wrote:[Shakir 4:157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[Yusufali 4:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
[Pickthal 4:157] And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:157]
Now, none of these three implies at all that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah -- not one! The verse on Mary is in itself a separate thought, even with your attempt to make them one single line of thought, they are quite separate thoughts.
Here is what the verse on Mary reads like:
Surah 4:155-156 wrote:
[Shakir 4:155-156] Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few. And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny.
[Yusufali 4:155-156] (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;- That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;
[Pickthal 4:155-156] Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened - Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few -And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
As you can see, the passage does not say anything about the Jews mocking, but not meaning it, that Jesus is the Messiah. It merely speaks about their unbelief in general.
In any case, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, what say you? At least for now.
Of course your above Quranic quote is nothing but mOnKeY mOnKeY do.
Oh my, I am reduced to a monkey....
A person as your self with such disposition of thaught and excercize of logic which you have done extremely well in, I am ashamed that you never went back to double confirm these quotes.
Double confirm? I see, you are saying that I picked them off from someone, and took it as gospel truth?
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I do know where those passages come from, and I do know what the Muslim tactic is.
This comes from ones lack of reading. In the same Surah couple verses before the same identicle words are used for Yahya with the difference in the pronouns
Just to save me the time to have to defend myself, go to this thread, and read what I wrote on this:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=4748
To bring that verse up is irrelevant. It has the same foundamental meaning with Yahya
The link I gave above should help to explain what I used that verse for. If you have any questions, let me know.
Side note... Did not John die?
You thought expressions convey that you have not read the Talmud before, so that why i said what I said, and then to confirm I trust your word as being true on this if you ever read the Talmud before.
I doubt my expressions could give off such impression. I said that the rationalization was post-Christ, not pre-Christ.
I don't see how such proposition could give off the impression that talmudic knowledge is absent.
It was illogical to me for you to make such a statement being aware or having knowledge of what the Talmud says about him and his mother.
Well, knowing what the Talmud says of him does not change the fact that their rationalization was as a result of their desire to justify their rejection of Christ -- and not the other way around.
I know that there are a number of references made about different failed messiahs, as well. I just don't think that knowing this, justifies the idea that the Jews rejected Jesus because of the hanging. That is a post rejection, thus I see it as suspect.
What is common among Christian in criticism against islam, which i should not have been so quick to put you in that group, they study islam from a critic and bias point of view which is propagated using various schools of thought that do not agree with each other and which conforms more to their method of criticism
Do you not see the irony in this? You realize that this is precisely the form of criticism you have been using?
At least in Islam, there is high regard for Hadiths, but in Christianity, there is no high regard for apocryphal and other extra-canonical writings. These are not held to as authoritative in anything, they are but literary works.
As it turns out, the major differences in Islam is based on Hadiths.
However I have to be blunt to this extreme. If you have never read the Quran and read the Authentic Hadith "Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim" for your self then you are remote from understanding islam in its true perspective in a non bias and non dictatorial view.
I have read the Qu'ran, and I have read other literary works of the Muslims.
Blessings!