"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - They slew him not nor crucified, 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, but Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise." (Holy Qur'an Surah An-Nisa Ayah 157-158)These two ayahs, from Allah's Holy Word, totally separate Muslims from Christians beyond any sort of compromise. Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was either crucified or he was not - one or the other - it could not be both. As Muslims, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves as to why we hold the belief that Allah (swt) did not, and would not, allow His Holy Messenger to die in such disgrace and why Allah (swt) would never require an innocent man to serve as a "sacrifice for the sins of mankind".
The dogma of the "crucifixion and resurrection" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) forms the central doctrine of all branches of Christianity. The "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws), according to Christianity, served the purpose of providing a "vicarious atonement" for the sins of all mankind, that he was the "sin-offering", "the scapegoat" and "the paschal (Passover) lamb" and his supposed death was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy - most especially Isaiah 53. We will examine these claims and, inshallah, show how crucifying Prophet 'Isa (saaws) would have served none of those purposes.
All quotes from the Holy Qur'an are from the translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall's work: "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran". All Biblical quotes are from the King James Authorized Version Bible, unless otherwise noted.
My comparison of the supposed "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to the Torah's description of Sin-offerings, Passover, Yom Kippur, etc. may seem like I'm indulging in nit-picking, but if Christians are going to tell Muslims that the "crucifixion" is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, then the "crucifixion" should be more like than unlike these things it is supposed to be the fulfillment of. I don't think that would be unfair to expect. After all, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever that was) wrote (Hebrews 10: 1):
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."
"The law" refers to the Torah. The "shadows of things to come" implies that people should see the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) in these Jewish rituals and holy days. So let's get started.
First, let us define: "Vicarious Atonement". It is the belief that the sins of an individual, a nation or all humanity, could be atoned for by the death of an innocent victim. This victim could be either an animal or a human being. Occasionally, this victim would embody a divinity, and this "god" would die as an offering for sin. For a more detailed explanation, read "The Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer. In his book, Sir Frazer shows how very common it was for pagan cultures (e.g. the Greeks, the Hindus) to practice "vicarious atonement" sacrifices. On page 667 of his book, Frazer says: "If we ask why a dying god should be chosen to take upon himself and carry away the sins and sorrows of the people, it may be suggested that in the practice of using the divinity as a scapegoat we have a combination of two customs which were at one time distinct and independent. On the one hand we have seen that it has been customary to kill the human or animal god in order to save his divine life from being weakened by the inroads of age. On the other hand we have seen that it has been customary to have a general expulsion of evils and sins once a year. Now, if it occurred to people to combine these two customs, the result would be the employment of the dying god as a scapegoat. He was killed, not originally to take away sin, but to save the divine life from the degeneracy of old age; but, since he had to be killed at any rate, people may have thought that they might as well seize the opportunity to lay upon him the burden of their sufferings and sins, in order that he might bear it away with him to the unknown world beyond the grave."
What does the Holy Qur'an say about "vicarious atonement"? Let's find out:
"Whoso committeth sin committeth it only against himself. Allah is ever Knower, Wise. And whoso committeth a delinquency or crime, then throweth (the blame) thereof upon the innocent, hath burdened himself with falsehood and a flagrant crime." (Surah An-Nisa Ayah 111 - 112).
Hmmm, pretty clear that Islam does not accept the idea of burdening the innocent with the sins of the guilty. But, of course, a Christian would not accept the Holy Qur'an as evidence. So, let us pose the question: "Is the concept of an innocent man bearing the sins of the guilty compatible with the Jewish Bible (a.k.a. the Old Testament or Tanach)?" Let's see:
"The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God , ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die....Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18: 1 - 4 and 19 - 20)
Wow! I guess that even the Jewish Bible says: " Just say NO to Vicarious Atonement!". Oops! Almost forgot the best part:
" But if the wicked will turn away from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?" (Ezekiel 18: 21 - 23).
Seems that the Jewish Bible is pretty explicit, God would rather that the wicked should repent than demanding he die, and the sins of the evil ones are NOT EVER put upon the righteous. By the way, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel was a Priest and would certainly know whether or not what he was writing was heretical teaching or not.
There is also the little problem of Proverbs 21: 18 which tells us:
"The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright."
Exactly the opposite of what Christians believe!
So, the verdict is in: "Vicarious Atonement" is not a Biblical teaching, it is more at home among the pagans than among the worshippers of the One True God.
But what about the idea that Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was the "Lamb of Passover" as Paul of Tarsus said:
"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:" (First Corinthians 5:7).
A modern Christian writer, Leon Morris, says on page 92 of his book "The Atonement, Its Meaning & Significance" (Inter-Varsity Press, 1983): " There is no real reason for doubting that the Passover was seen as a genuine sacrifice, all the more so since in due course the slaughter of the lamb or kid took place at the temple with the priest handling the blood. It is likely, therefore, that there was some idea of forgiveness of sin associated with it. It seems that in time all sacrifice was held to be atoning at least in one aspect and this would be true of the Passover as of all others." Read that again, "no real reason", "it is likely", "it seems", sounds like Mr. Morris does not know for certain. Since we are discussing something which our Eternal Salvation might well depend on, the least Mr. Morris - or any other Christian - should be is absolutely certain ! Well, is Mr. Morris correct? Our response should be: "What does the Old Testament about Passover?". Let's open-up the Torah and see.
"And this day (Passover) shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout you generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever" (Exodus 12: 14)
Did you see any reference to sin in there? I didn't. Let's assume that the Hebrews might later associate Passover with sin-offerings, but if they did that would have been an innovation, certainly not Biblical in its basis. For the Jews , from the Exodus until the present day, the Passover is a feast to commemorate the release of the Bani Israel from their captivity in Egypt. They eat lamb or goat kid for Passover for the same reason Americans eat turkey for Thanksgiving Day: it is the food associated with the holiday (Of course, there is no Divine Command to eat turkey on Thanksgiving). Why lamb ? Well, according to the ancient Egyptian paganism, the lamb was considered a sacred god, molesting a lamb was punishable by death! Similar to the reverence of cows in India today. Of course, the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that major Old Testament figures did sacrifice lambs and sheep to God for various reasons Abel in Genesis 4:4, as well as Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) (saaws) in Genesis 22: 7 and13. But as Torah says:
"And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?" (Exodus 8: 26).
To get a better picture, imagine Muslims in India publicly slaughtering a Brahma cow in downtown Calcutta and you get the idea of this verse. The Jews eat an animal that their former slave-masters used to worship. Pretty deep, huh?
Remember, when the Prophet Muhammad (saaws) captured Makkah from the pagans, he was not lax in his dealings with the idols and shrines of the defeated pagans. They were uniformly destroyed. The One True God makes it clear in the Holy Qur'an that paganism is to be trampled underfoot:
"And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish." (Surah Bani Israil Ayah 81)
Also, we must compare the supposed "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to Exodus chapter 12, which gives the details of how the Passover would be observed. Exodus 12: 3 - 6 says that the lamb would be taken out from the flock and set aside on the 10th day of the month and then killed on the 14th day of the month. Problem: Matthew 26: 2 - 6 and Mark 14: 1 - 3 make it clear that two days before Passover, Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was not even in Jerusalem! If he had been arrested on the 10th and killed on the 14th, it would have been in-line with Exodus 12, but it plainly was not. Also, Exodus 12: 9 says that the lamb would be roasted over a fire and eaten. Let's be real, according to Gospel accounts Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was nailed to a cross, stabbed with a spear and later - after he supposedly "died" - put into a tomb. Again, no resemblance to the Passover lamb. Exodus 12: 46 makes it clear that the lamb's meat would not be carried outside the home where the feast was eaten, Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified" outside not only of anyone's home, but outside the walls of Jerusalem itself! Exodus 12: 9 also says that no bones of the lamb are to be broken, John 19: 36 says that none of Prophet 'Isa's (saaws) bones were broken in fulfillment of Psalms 34: 20:
" He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken." .
Problem: I would say it is impossible to pound a nail through a person's wrists, feet or ankles without breaking the metacarpal, tarsal and metatarsal bones in those respective places. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate a doctor telling me how that could be done. Finally, Exodus 12: 43 to 45 says quite clearly that no foreigners or uncircumcised may participate in Passover. All Gospel accounts show clearly that Romans, uncircumcised pagans, were greatly involved in supposedly putting Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to death. So, was Prophet 'Isa (saaws) like the lamb of Passover? My answer is: not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
Ask any Christian: Did Prophet 'Isa (saaws) eat the Passover Seder the night before he was "crucified"? The answer will usually come back: "Yes! Of course! it says so in the Gospels." Certainly, there is Biblical support
"And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover." (Matthew 26: 19)
Similar passages are found in Mark 14: 16 and Luke 22: 13. In fact, you could show the narrations given in Matthew 26: 19 - 30, Mark 14: 16 - 25 and Luke 22: 13 - 23 to any Jew and ask if these are descriptions of a Passover Seder and the reply would be in the affirmative. So, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, there was a Passover Seder eaten by Prophet 'Isa (saaws) and his disciples the night before the "crucifixion". Therefore, the "crucifixion" supposedly happened on the morning of the 15th of Nisan, with Prophet 'Isa (saaws) "dying" by 3 o'clock in the afternoon (Matthew 27: 46 - 50 and Mark 15: 34 - 37).
But, since the Passover Lamb was to be killed on the 14th of Nisan and eaten on the 15th of Nisan, the similarity of the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to the Passover Lamb takes yet another blow to what little credibility it might have seemed, at first, to possess.
However, the situation does not get any better when we look into the Gospel of John, in fact it only gets worse! "How does it get worse?", you might ask. It gets worse because John has the "crucifixion" occurring on the 14th day of Nisan! I'm not kidding, look at this excerpt from the "Passion Narrative" as given by John:
"And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (Pontius Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" (John 19: 14)
"Then delivered he (Pontius Pilate) him (Jesus) therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away." (John 19: 16)
"The preparation of the Passover" is on the 14th day of Nisan, not the 15th.
Was the meal, eaten the night before, a Passover Seder? Well, a Seder is eaten on the evening of the 15th of Nisan - so, according to John, it was not. In fact he simply called the meal eaten the night before (the night of the 14th) "supper" in John 13: 2. For further evidence, look at what else John has to say regarding that night and the following day:
"For some of them (the disciples) thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." (John 13: 29)
"Buy those things that we have need of against the feast"? If, by "the feast", they meant Passover Seder, Matthew, Mark and Luke said that they had already eaten it. Yet, in John's entire narrative (John chapters 13 to 17) there is no mention whatsoever of the basic elements of the Seder, such as the bread (matzo) or the wine. As I said, John 13: 2 simply called it "supper".
To convince yourself that, in fact, no one had yet eaten the Passover Seder, go to John 18: 28
"Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passover."
They did not wish to enter the dwelling of a pagan, due to the fact that pagan Romans had the practice of interring their dead family members inside their homes. Since they had not yet eaten the Passover Seder, they did not wish to defile themselves by entering what was, in their eyes, an unclean place.
So, not only does the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) not bear the slightest resemblance to the Passover Lamb, the Gospel accounts of the "crucifixion" do not even agree as to what day it was supposed to have occurred!
For people unfamiliar with the Jewish Bible, or Judaism in general, the scapegoat being referred to is from the Jewish Holy Day known as : Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). Yom Kippur is described in detail in Leviticus chapter 16. The ceremony actually involved several animals offered as sacrifices: a young bullock (sin-offering for the High Priest and his family), two rams ( one as a burnt offering for the High Priest and his family, the other as a burnt offering for the Bani Israel) and two goats (one as a sin-offering for the Bani Israel, the other was the scapegoat).
The scapegoat is what Prophet 'Isa (saaws) is often compared to. Let's look at the scapegoat's role in the Day of Atonement sacrifices:
"And when he (Aaron) hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." (Leviticus 16: 20 - 22)
The Talmud (the collection of the oral traditions of Judaism, which have been collected into dozens of volumes of books) mentions in the volume Yoma 6:6 that this goat would eventually be pushed off a cliff to make sure that it never come back, their own interpretation of "letting go of the goat in the wilderness", I guess. Hence, the past year's sins were never to return.
There are more than a few problems with this comparison.
First, Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 16: 29) but Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified " on either the fourteenth or fifteenth day of the month of Nisan (when Passover happens), which is the first month of the year (Exodus 12: 2). So, Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified" on the wrong day ! Jews could no more combine Yom Kippur with Passover than Christians could combine Christmas with Halloween.
Second, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting and a day of refraining from all work (again, Leviticus 16: 29). Ask any Jew, the day before Passover involves a lot of work (i.e. removing all leaven from the home, cleaning all utensils, etc.) not exactly my idea of refraining from work. Plus, Passover is a feast day, not a fasting day. Can you fast and feast at the same time? I've never tried it, have you?
Third, taking the Talmud into account, we read in all four Gospels of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) being "crucified", not pushed off a cliff. Look at any map of Jerusalem in the First Century C.E. and you will see that the hill of Golgotha, where Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified", is right outside of Jerusalem - not out in the "land not inhabited".
Fourth, we don't read in any part of the New Testament of the High Priest wearing any special linen garments or washing himself before the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws), but Leviticus 16: 4 commands that the High Priest do this before the sacrifices on Yom Kippur even start. You couldn't omit that part any more than a Muslim could omit wudu (ablutions) before performing salat (prayers).
If a Christian compares Prophet 'Isa (saaws) with the scapegoat of Yom Kippur, ask him/her to read Leviticus chapter 16 and to point-out all the similarities between Yom Kippur and the "crucifixion". There won't be many, if any at all.
When the Jewish Bible (a.k.a. the Old Testament or Tanach) talks about "sin" we must do a little extra reading. Using "The Jewish Encyclopedia" (Funk and Wagnells) as my source, we learn that in Judaism, there are three kinds of sin. The lightest is the "het", "hatta'ah" or "hattat" (literally: "fault", "shortcoming" or "misstep"), an infraction of a command committed in ignorance of the meaning or existence of the command. The second type is the "'awon", a breach of a minor commandment committed with a full knowledge of the existence and nature of that commandment. The third, and most serious, is "pesha'" or "mered", which is a presumptuous and rebellious act committed against God; or a "resha'", such an act done with an evil intention.
Now, what "sin-offering" do the Christians associate with the "crucifixion"? Hard to say, really. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever it was) said in chapter 10 verse 10:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
and later, in verses 18 and 19:
"Now where remission of these (sins and iniquities) is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,"
We are faced with a problem: the Jewish Bible was written mostly in Hebrew and a sprinkling of Aramaic, the New Testament was written entirely in Koine Greek, so we have to compare the Hebrew and Greek words for "sin" as best we can. I'll use "The New Testament, Greek and English" (American Bible Society, 1966, 1971, 1976) and "Greek-English Lexicon" by Liddell and Scott (Oxford University Press,1986) as my source for the Greek words, we discover that the New Testament uses the word "amartia", which means "sin", "failure" or "error"; and also "parabasis", which translates as "transgression" or "an overstepping". So, we can surmise that "amartia" is equivalent to "het", and that "mered' or "pesha" is roughly the same as "parabasis". Follow me so far? Okay.
So, how do we find-out which kind Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposed to die for? Let's look at the Greek text of John 1: 29:
"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin (amartian) of the world."
So, the word "amartian" is used, roughly the same as the word "het", now we've got something to work with. But wait! Didn't we already establish that "amartia" and "het" are sins that are committed accidentally ? What sense would it make for God to incarnate Himself to die by slow torture on a cross for sins committed by accident or by ignorance? Allah (swt) forbid such blasphemy!
So, what did Prophet Yahya (John the Baptizer) (saaws) mean when/if he said "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."? When was a lamb offered for sin/amartia/het ? Look no further than Leviticus chapter 4. This chapter spells-out the who/what/when/where/why/how of Sin-Offerings.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:" (Leviticus 4: 1 - 2)
Well, that's clear. Accidental sins committed through ignorance, not done purposefully. Ask a Christian what is meant that Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was an offering for sin. Most likely they won't know what they mean by that.
To put another nail in the coffin to bury this argument in, do yourself a favor: read Leviticus chapters 4 and 5. Certain individuals, making their sin-offering, were required to bring a specific animal of a specific gender. The High Priest offered a young bullock, the whole congregation of Israel offered a young bullock as an offering for the community, a ruler offered a male goat kid, and a commoner offered a female goat or female lamb. Since Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was born male, not female, obviously the last example does not hold. You can't have a male who is supposed to be "the Lamb of God" who is "an offering for sin" when the animal specified is supposed to be a female lamb. Does that make sense? No, of course not.
Leviticus 5: 1 - 13 mentions other offerings for other offenses, such as withholding testimony, touching unclean things, or taking incautious oaths. The various atonement-offerings for these offenses included: a female lamb or female goat kid; for people unable to afford a lamb or goat, two turtledoves or two young pigeons; or, for the very poor, an offering of flour. Notice, again, that the lamb mentioned is female.
Lastly, the "'asham", or "trespass-offering", mentioned in Leviticus 5: 15 - 19 was actually a penalty paid in the form of a sacrificial offering to God. For misappropriating property that belonged to the sanctuary or had been contributed to it; or, in some cases when one had sworn falsely concerning his responsibility toward the property of others; a ram would be offered. A ram - right gender and species, but it's not a lamb and the offenses it atoned for would not necessitate God incarnating Himself. It's not likely to be a sin most individuals would manage to find themselves responsible for.
"Wait!" you might ask, "wasn't he supposed to have died for all mankind?". Let's look at Matthew 26: 28 Prophet 'Isa (saaws) is quoted as saying:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (amartioon)."
"Many"? That looks like a group of people. But a lamb wasn't offered for a group, it was offered for an individual. A bullock was offered for "the congregation". In the whole New Testament, Prophet 'Isa (saaws) is never referred to, or compared to, a bullock.
Do the Christians realize how they have sold their souls to a Doctrine of Confusion? Inshallah, they will learn before the Day of Judgment, if not...
This chapter is taken, by most Christians, as a prophecy by Isaiah of the future sufferings of the Messiah. However, it does not stand-up to critical examination. Let's look at it closely.
We must ask: how do the Jews interpret this chapter? After all, it is their Bible. Actually, Isaiah 52: 12 to 53: 12 is the fourth of what are called the "Servant Songs" of Isaiah. Jews interpret these verses to refer to the dawning of the Messianic Era, speaking of God's promise to exalt the Bani Israel in the future and the gentile nations will realize that they had unjustly persecuted the Bani Israel. Isaiah 52: 13 says:
"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high."
The Bani Israel are frequently called "The Servant of The Lord", with the entire nation spoken of as a single individual. For example, Isaiah 41: 8 - 9 says:
"But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away."
In fact, the Christian Church Father, Origen, wrote in his book "Contra Celsum" (translator: Henry Chadwick; Cambridge Press) "I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they are scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes."
A big problem with the idea of this chapter referring to the Prophet 'Isa (saaws), coupled with the idea of the Messiah being God Incarnate is the statement "he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.". If the Servant is God, 1) how can God be His own servant? and 2) God is already exalted and extolled and very high, He does not need to become something He already is.
But what about the lamb of Isaiah 53: 7?
"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Well, the image of an innocent person or the Bani Israel being compared to a lamb or to sheep, is not unique to Isaiah 53.
"But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered." (Jeremiah 11 :19)
Psalms 44: 11 compares the Bani Israel to sheep given over to slaughter:
"Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and hast scattered us among the heathen."
Another problem with Isaiah 53: 7, according to Gospel account of the trial of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) given in John 18: 21 - 23 the exchange was recorded thusly:
"Why asketh thou me (Jesus)? ask them which heard me, what I have said: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?"
Not exactly a "silent sufferer" was he?
If any Christian tells you that Isaiah 52: 13 to 53: 12 refers to the Messiah, ask him how many children Prophet 'Isa (saaws) had. Isaiah 53: 10 says:
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."
The word translated "seed" is "zerah" and in the entire Jewish Bible the word "zerah" always refers to physical descendants, never to spiritual disciples. Spiritual children would be referred to as "ben".
Isaiah 53: 10 says his soul would be a sin-offering, yet Hebrews 10: 10 said that we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Prophet 'Isa (saaws). Which was it? His body or his soul? Sounds like somebody can't decide.
Is this confusion really worth betting your Eternal Salvation on?
Let's start with an easy one. Matthew 27: 9 - 10 says quite plainly:
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah) the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom the they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."
Problem: this verse does not exist anywhere in the Jewish Bible.
Second, John 19: 34 says:
"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his (Jesus) side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."
This verse is supposed to show the fulfillment of prophecy, according to John 19: 37
"And again another scripture saith, They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."
The verse that was supposed to be fulfilled is Zechariah 12: 10, let's see:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
Why does John 19: 37 say: "look upon him", but Zechariah 12: 10 says: "look upon me"? What's going on here? Also, why does Zechariah switch around "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"? Who is "me", and who is "him"? Your guess is as good as the Christians'. What about the part of Zechariah 12: 10 that mentions: "and they shall mourn for him as for a firstborn son"? According to all Gospel accounts, beyond the circle of disciples that Prophet "Isa (saaws) had, no one was mourning for Prophet 'Isa (saaws) after his "crucifixion" and "death". In fact, John 20 :19 mentions that the disciples were in hiding after the "crucifixion". Why? "For fear of the Jews", that's why. So much for mourning.
What do the Jews have in their Bible, which the Christians have no control over the content therein? Here's what the Tanach (Jewish Publication Society) says:
"But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born."
Quite a difference. So, we must ask: "who is right and who is wrong?" or rather: "who is lying and who is telling the truth?" How are we supposed to know which is accurate, especially since the Christian Bible's verses of John 19: 37 and Zechariah 12: 10 don't even agree with each other?
Just one more.
The Christians tell us that Psalms 22: 16 predicts the "crucifixion" so clearly:
"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."
Well, the Hebrew text reads: "like a lion they are at my hands and feet." Why the difference? The Hebrew text has the word " k'ari" for "like a lion", "ari" means "a lion" the "k' " makes it mean "like a lion". The text the Christians use has the word "karah", translated as "pierced". Interesting problem. Even more interesting is the fact that in the entire Old Testament the word "karah" is translated as "dig", "to dig" or "to open up", only in Psalms 22:16 is it rendered as "pierced". Why is that? I have no idea.
The Holy Qur'an warns us:
"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, 'This is from Allah,' that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." (Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 79)
This ayah could easily apply to Christians who seem to alter the text of the Jewish Bible unhesitatingly.
The Holy Qur'an tells us:
"He (the angel Jibreel) said (unto Miriam): So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: it is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him (Prophet 'Isa) a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained."
"A revelation for mankind" is more accurately translated as "a Sign unto mankind". Just what is this "sign"?
Examine the religions which surrounded Palestine in the first centuries of the Common Era, you will see that one of the most common belief systems was that of the "dying god" who was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died a horrible death and rose from the dead. They believed that an innocent victim could bear the sins of the nation (a.k.a. "vicarious atonement"). Notice that Christianity, especially the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is more similar than dissimilar to pagan faiths - especially with the worship of "saints". Yet, Islam, which spread into many of the same areas as Christianity had centuries earlier, is more dissimilar than similar to paganism.
There is the Sign Unto Mankind, alhamdulillah.
We accept the Virgin Birth, But we believe it occurred at the Word of Allah (swt), not because of any sexual liaison between a "god" and a virgin girl or a "Holy Spirit coming upon some-one" and "the power of the Highest overshadowing anybody". All it took was Allah (swt) saying:"Be" and it happened, just that simple.
Miracles performed by Prophet 'Isa (saaws) were not from any divine power of his own but from Allah (swt).
We deny the death of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) solely on the word of the Holy Qur'an. We see what is said of his "death" and we reject it, not because we hate him {Allah (swt) forbid}, but because we love Allah (swt) and believe that Allah (swt) can forgive sins and transgressions simply with sincere repentance and intention to correct your life.
Inshallah, this article will be updated as I make corrections to any errors that I may have made and as I continue my research. I pray that Allah (swt) will guide me. All good that comes from this article is from Allah (swt), all mistakes have been my own.
[Christianity] [Home] [ Site Map ]