Ali Ataie – Differences Between the Jesus of the Bible & the Jesus of the Qur’an
AI: Summary ©
The transcript discusses the historical context of the reassurance of the Bible's exclusivity and the historical significance of the crucifixion of Jesus. It uses a paraphrase from Dr. Louay Fatib, stating that Jesus was not crucified and that the Bible's version of the flood is more historically accurate than the bible.
AI: Summary ©
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.