Talk:Islamic views on Jesus's death

This page made from content originally on Islamic view of Jesus.

debate on gnosticsm?
Hello...

Is this part necessary on the topic of "islamic views on jesus death"?

"This stream of teaching was first condemned by St. John, the apostle of Christ in his first epistle, chapter 4, under the category of the spirit of Anti Christ, concerning all of those that refute the notion that Jesus came in a body from flesh and blood to redeem the sin of the world. Basilides' teachings were also condemned as heretical by Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130 – c.200),[7] and by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 - c.236),[8] although they had been evaluated more positively by Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c.215).[9] However, this view is disregarded by mainstream Christianity which only accepts the four gospels contained in the New Testament as genuine, the other twenty-eight, seldom publicised, are viewed as heretical"

Maybe a short notion, it seems to have gnostic origin, these were opposed to christiatnity would be enough or? It seems a bit distracting. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't fully understand your question. Are you asking why notions that elaborated away from the literal message in the gospels are highlighted? I think it may be because scholars seem to conclude that several of the ideas in early Islam derived from fringe groups such as the gnostics, causing conflicting ideas not only in the Christian communities in Arabia, but what was eventually understood about Christianity by Muhammad and others. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean especially this part:
 * "However, this view is disregarded by mainstream Christianity which only accepts the four gospels contained in the New Testament as genuine, the other twenty-eight, seldom publicised, are viewed as heretical"


 * Of course christianity holds them as self made, but actually, there is no scientific reason to hold gnostic gospels less accurate than canonical gospels. We could now made an argumention in the article about jesus and the gospels, but I guess, this is not related to this article and therefore it is described enough in the article "Gospel". And a source is still not given for this part. Of cource the possible (or even likely) gnostic origin should be mentioned there. But how authentic they are should not be up for debate here, I guess. My request is to remove this part "seldom publicised", because the others authencity of the other gospels are likely like the "heretical" gospels, just not accepted by christianity, due to their belief system. Acutally the introduction here seems to discuss, how christianity thinks about the views the gnostic interpretation, and this is in "islamic view on jesus death" not important. It does not seems to be neutral in the beginning, due it unnecessarily debates, the view on gnostic interpretation from a christian point. Maybe it can be shortened to the basic message and the not citied part can be removed.

--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that sentence you highlighted stands without needing citation, for it summarizes the paragraph and what is cited therein. Typically the lead isn't inundated with citations when the body of the article goes into greater detail with citation support. The gnostic writings are 'real' / 'scientific' in that they existed, but historically they were never included into any canon nor acknowledged as agreeable in the earliest church groups which continued in communion with one another, despite differing views, because they drew from the same sources (the canon gospel). Only what later became called 'gnostic' groups, the fringe mentioned, were the ones who included such ideas.The theology of such groups, using their writings, grew away and formulated ideas that contradicted the acknowledged gospel teachings. I think it is appropriate for this information to be in the lead without citation because of the reasons already mentioned; it was from gnostic sources that much of Islamic theology and idea was later sourced from...thus the obvious deviation from the earliest writings. Scholars such as Parrinder and Watt show this in their work.-- HafizHanif (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The canonical gospels are unlikely more authentic than gnostic gospels, because they all are propably made in the 2th century. (this, and the discussion about it's view from christianity, is that I mean, by "debate on gnosticism"). I think it seems to be written from a more christian point of view (assuming early dating of canonical gospels), taking them for "Real" (they are propably also "selfmade" because they are actually stories made from a (today) unknown source and not really reports of the life of Jesus) and focussing much on the view on gnostics from a christian perspective.(For example the part of "gospels of barnabas" is directly followed by "It is fake" (of course it is made around the 16th century)). If I am the only one here, who thinks it is too much written from a christian perspective, than we leave it that way. Just hope my request was now understandable.

--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about it yesterday and you are correct that the lead starts out from a Christian perspective, instead of directly addressing what the article's title is. I think some things in the lead should be placed in its proper section in the article, while highlighting in the lead what is currently explored and detailed in the body. The article could use a bit of work. As for the gnostics preceding or being found at the same time as the the canonical gospels is, I think, already clarified regarding extant and mentions in refutations, which do have dates attached to them. I agree, "it is fake" is not a scholarly attribution to anything, but simply "made in the 16th century" is a proper attribution. -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic view of Jesus' death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124130745/http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/review.html to http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

reason for some cleaning up

 * the other twenty-eight, seldom publicised, are viewed as heretical -yes, they were viewed as heretical, but that does "seldom publicised" mean? the canonical gospels were also "seldom publicisced" by their own authors. beleiving they are "inspired by God or the holy spirit" is a religious view, not scientific.

-why does it means, it needs a ctation, then this part of leadsection just summorize, taht is ourced below?
 * thought the victim was Jesus, causing everyone to believe that Jesus was crucified.[citation needed] A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his body is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so (this view is rare).[citation needed] In opposition to the second and third foregoing proposals, yet others maintain that God does not use deceit and therefore they contend that crucifixion just did not occur.[

-there were also sunni scholars, who disagreed, like bin arabis interpretataion (who was also a sunni scholar). it is not possible to find an agreement among sunni theologicans about a specific "mythological" interpretation. Mahmud Shaltut, for example did disagree with ibn kathir. However ibn kathir is popular among salafi-sunnism, but if that is meant, it should be stated in a more preciios way (by mentioning the specific group).
 * The following narration recorded in the Qur'anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir is graded as authentic by sunni scholars for the Qur'anic verse related to the substitution of Jesus


 * Basilides (Βασιλείδης), was a leading theologian of Gnostic tendencies, who had taught in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. This stream of teaching was first condemned by St. John, the apostle of Christ in his first epistle, chapter 4, under the category of the spirit of Anti-Christ, concerning all of those that refute the notion that Jesus came in a body from flesh and blood to redeem the sin of the world - it reads like an anti- islamic evangelical wrote it, to condemdn the "islamic jesus" to be the anti christ. furthermore, there can also be some references to nag hamadi be found. for example the muta' zillah believed "simon" was curified according to hadithtraditions (they rejected it, because it would contradict Mutazilas doctrine of "god is always righteous). Who basilides is, can be read in the article the link links to.


 * extra-biblical Judeo-Christian sources - since there are no "jewish sources" about jesus (except those who demonize him", we can not talk about judeo-christian-source.

Again it reads, like an evangelical wrote it, with the lead, "jesus death is a scientific fact". but acually it compares mythic exegesis with scientific facts. jewish, who do not consider jesus to be spiritual or divine in any way and scientific scholars (not just western scholars are "historicans", like the link suggests here) also do not hold any mythic interpretation on jesus. thus, then we are mentioning "all say he died", then it is like meionting "but excep christians, none of them bleive he rised from death". since islam often teaches, someone else was taken instead of jesus, the fact there was a man called jesus crucified, is worthless, since it could be "the one, who looked like jesus". islam itself claims, everything about crucifixion was "not real". why comparing then, historicity to something "supernatural"?
 * While most Western Scholars,[23] Jews,[24][25] and Christians believe Jesus died


 * removed "jesus will die in his second coming", since it is rue this tradition exist, but it is not binding.

your sincerely --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnabas's version of events
i think many Irrelevant things are mentioned here.so, i have summered the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.48.108.58 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Help find valid sources
Please assist in building this entry into a decent article of viable and resourced information. So many Islamic articles are poorly written and / or poorly cited, being derived from self-published religious sources having little to no scholarly-based findings. I removed many bogus references and requested citations to claims made. The majority of the claims needing citation are found in the sources already referenced, btw. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello VenusFeuerFalle, thank you for your edits. I would like to request you to add the fuller fields for book citations instead of the older / simpler fields as per current wiki guidelines. Please see the templates for the minimum requirement. As for deleting the citation requests, notice that the claims are not sourced nor found in nearby citations. It shouldn't be assumed that passive wikipedia readers are aware of specific dogmas or doctrinal points within Islam or within any specific branch of Islam... or that they will read further pages of a nearby citation to find the support for a claim. To avoid citing certain claims or positions mentioned in the article is to defeat the purpose of wikipedia, which is to elaborate and define things. So please either provide the actual place such claims are mentioned (page number at least), or delete the claims altogether, or return the citation needed notices. Besides this, thank you for your contributions and helping better the articles. - HafizHanif (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry HafizHanif I thought, due to the amount of cite-tags, it was made by a user spamming tags, therefore I considered the cited source to provide the information. Yes, I should check it before trusting it. For the tags: The Ahmadiyya claim I removed, I added a link to their Website. For the citations of the documentary, I used the "deadlink" tag. I should have restored the removed tags now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your understanding. As to citing a website, I don't think that is a qualified source of reference. Something like a reputably published book, or what an Islamic scholar has published, would be qualified. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

About the section "Japanese Christian claims"
Hello, I recently read this article again after a while and I am surprised about this section: Japanese Christian claims Since this article is about "Islamic views on Jesus' death", this seems to be odd, here. I think this should be removed or otherwise moved to an article like "Denial of Crucifixion of Jesus" or something of the like, but it seems to be wrong to me to write down every denial in this article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, very odd and out of place. -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A call to archive this talk page
All or most discussion from year 2017 or up to year 2017 should be archived in my opinion. As a non registered user, I can't archive this myself (spam filter mistakenly preventing me). 2A10:8012:F:F548:8E4:F22:B7C3:BB85 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic views on Jesus' death/Archive 1. 2A10:8012:F:F548:8E4:F22:B7C3:BB85 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)