Muslims quote Luke 22:43 as proof that when Jesus cried out to God not to be crucified, that an angel came and saved him from crucifixion. However the next verses says that Jesus was arrested by the mob for crucifixion.
My Question is: on what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
2006-09-18 11:43:31 · 10 answers · asked by crash 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They justify it by ignoring the fact that their own religious book has so many glaring mistakes.
2006-09-18 11:46:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Muslim belief that Jesus was not crucified and not killed by Jews is based upon Quran NOT Bible. So, the question that why do we take the first verse true and the other as corruption is straightforward.
In Qur'an it is said in Surah An-Nisaa 4: 57:
"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so 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."
2006-09-18 18:52:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well,, no sensible muslim should conclude such ... The point to be noted is that why was Jesus crying "Oh God , oh God , why have you forsaken me" ??? and look he is calling God as "God" ,,, does God have a God ?? no!
and this proves that Jesus was not willing to die >>>
According to Gospel of Luke , Two angels came down from heaven to strengthen Jesus. Luke further says that his sweat was great drops of blood. (Luke 22:44) So much of agony he was in. He did'nt want to go thorough, according to mathew, mark and luke . According to Mathew and Mark, even after Jesus was put on cross, when he was about to die, he finally said, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) & (Mark 15:34), It shows, right up to the very end, he didn't want to go through with it. He was not a willing participant.
The scenario which we have is that God is determining to let the innocent people go free, and he is crucifying Jesus instead, who is unwilling to die. The fact that Jesus is not willing makes it look very bad on God.
2006-09-18 18:48:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How do accept any of it as proof of anything? The whoe Bible was written by people who never met Christ and yet they think they can tell a story and everyone is supposed to believe it. The same goes for any religion that believes in Jesus at all.
2006-09-18 18:47:16 · answer #4 · answered by melrae1116 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now I guess that by asking this question, you believe that none of the text was corrupted? So might I then ask you to defend your belief that the text is valid and uncorrupted?
2006-09-18 18:48:08 · answer #5 · answered by Rabbi Yohanneh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the basis that : he is not a son of God , and God will not let any one crucify him are you a fool
2006-09-18 18:49:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont read the Bible since I converted from Christianity to Islam, why would you read a corrupted scripture, when you have the unchanged word of God, the Qur'an
2006-09-18 18:46:45 · answer #7 · answered by abdulaziiz 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'll put another question : how do you interpret the fact that Christ cried out 'My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?'
PS sorry I'm not a muslim.
2006-09-18 18:49:07 · answer #8 · answered by Les 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DO U THINK GOD WAS UNABLE TO SAVE HIM!!!!!!!!! God donot need to prove his miracles
2006-09-18 18:52:30 · answer #9 · answered by vertebralcolum 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's called faith.
2006-09-18 18:46:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋