Ali Ataie – Differences Between the Jesus of the Bible & the Jesus of the Qur’an

Our master Isa alaihis salam,

when the Quran's Christology,

its statements about Christ even though so so

so the Quran's Christology make more historical sense

than what the new testament even teaches about

Jesus, peace be upon him, even though the

Quran came 5 100 years after the New

Testament. This is amazing.

Most historians today

do not believe that the historical Jesus, peace

be upon him, claimed to be divine.

They say he claimed to be a prophet

and a healer

who taught a more relaxed interpretation

of the Torah,

and that he spoke of someone to come

after him, who would bring the kingdom of

God on earth.

And when it comes to the crucifixion,

so here the Christian will point will point

out to the Muslim and say, look here

the historian says, Isa alaihis salam was crucified

but the Quran denies it. But here I

would say

that historians have highly over emphasized the historicity

of the crucifixion. I think if they look

closely at the evidence again,

many of them will affirm at least the

historical

plausibility

that Isa alaihi salam was not crucified.

What does the Quran say? It says those

who differed about it, meaning the crucifixion,

were in doubt, in shock concerning it. They

did not have certain knowledge.

They did not have

except that they followed the gun conjecture.

In other words, none of the evidence

that Jews and Christians marshal to support Jesus'

crucifixion,

none of it was written by an eyewitness

of this alleged historical event. Every epistle, every

gospel, every statement in Christian, Jewish and Roman

sources without exception

came much later

and were authored by people who were not

there.

Paul was the first person in recorded history

to claim that Jesus was crucified. This was

20 years later after after the alleged event,

and he wasn't even there. Paul never met

the historical Jesus. He was not a disciple.

So these sources are conjectural.

They are.

Today, we know that this is true.

The Quran is correct.

But back when the prophet salallahu alayhi wasalam

first ordered the uttered these words, Christians and

historians believed that the 4 gospels, that 2

of them were written by 2 disciples of

Jesus and the other 2 were written by

disciples of disciples.

No historian really believes that anymore.

The Quran is correct

Yet most historians continue to drag their feet

on this issue.

There's a dogmatism among even secular historians. Don't

think these people are objective.

Put put put 50 quote unquote,

objective secular historians in a room and and

give them a topic. You have 50 different

responses, 50 different opinions.

So allow me to paraphrase an excellent point

made by doctor Louay Fatori. It's what he

says. It's a paraphrase. He says, if the

prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi sallam is the real

author of the Quran, and he desperately hoped

to convert Jews and Christians to Islam and

to become his followers, then why in the

world did he deny the crucifixion of Jesus

when both Jews and Christians maintained that he

was crucified? Why would he invent an uncrucified

Jesus? Why would he create an unnecessary barrier

to to, conversion?

The answer seems to be that the Quran

is stating an actual fact since it has

direct access to history

as a divine revelation.

It is simply a fact that Jesus of

Nazareth, the son of Mary, peace be upon

them, was not crucified.

So here's the main point, the Quran's version

of the flood, the exodus, the story of

Joseph,

the teachings of Jesus are more historically accurate

than what the bible says.