What happened to Jesus of Nazareth?

[Tender Branson]

He hasn't posted in a long time.

I hope he's OK.

[FairBol]

He hasn't posted in a long time.

I hope he's OK.

Sacriligous much?

[The Self]

Nothing. He never existed.

[7,052,770]

As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus ever died on the cross but was saved by God before he could be crucified and will return in the End Times and destroy the Cross of those who distorted his message.

The only account of Jesus's message we have is contained in the gospels, where he insists repeatedly on the necessity of his own death, often citing scripture to support his position. The Muslim position here is untenable.

Not that I'm a Muslim or anything, but how can we possibly know if the Gospel account is accurate? It could have easily been telephone-gamed or deliberate altered due to the agendas of the first- and second-century writers.

[Mopsus]

As Muslims, we don't believe Jesus ever died on the cross but was saved by God before he could be crucified and will return in the End Times and destroy the Cross of those who distorted his message.

The only account of Jesus's message we have is contained in the gospels, where he insists repeatedly on the necessity of his own death, often citing scripture to support his position. The Muslim position here is untenable.

Not that I'm a Muslim or anything, but how can we possibly know if the Gospel account is accurate? It could have easily been telephone-gamed or deliberate altered due to the agendas of the first- and second-century writers.

Even though Muslims don't believe Jesus was divine, they do believe that he was the Messiah to the Jews, which Jesus also claimed of himself. Now, Muslims have never really gone into what that means, but in the gospels, Jesus does - and in every one of them, he emphasizes the importance of his own death. You could say that the gospel writers were just trying to account for the execution of their cult leader by making up preposterous stories (something that other religious and secular cults don't do, btw), but if you're a Muslim, it makes more sense to believe that Jesus would have explained the circumstances of his death to his apostles before the event. Which leaves unexplained the question of why his followers would need to invent anything - and why those faithful among them would tolerate such inventions!

[The Mikado]

I mean, there was no preexisting Jewish tradition that a Messiah would be divine or immune from death. King David is granted the title "Annointed One" (Literally Messiah) and he was neither of those things. He was the powerful and successful king who seized Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Israelite kingdom...which is more or less what the ancient Jews were expecting their Messiah to be: a descendant of David who would seize Jerusalem and the Holy Land and start a new holy Kingdom ruled by the line of David.

Christianity changes the story dramatically because it claims Jesus was not only the Messiah of the Jews, but, more importantly, was the Son of God and, by extension, Savior of all Mankind. To the Christian, Jesus not establishing a kingdom in Israel is irrelevant because he rules over a more important Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus' death is a sign of success, not failure.

It's just worth keeping in mind that that perspective, the Christian one, is very much a flipped script and a radical departure from the traditional concept of what a Messiah would look like (and a massive departure from the idea of what a Messiah would look like that Jews are still waiting for).

[Mopsus]

I mean, there was no preexisting Jewish tradition that a Messiah would be divine or immune from death. King David is granted the title "Annointed One" (Literally Messiah) and he was neither of those things. He was the powerful and successful king who seized Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Israelite kingdom...which is more or less what the ancient Jews were expecting their Messiah to be: a descendant of David who would seize Jerusalem and the Holy Land and start a new holy Kingdom ruled by the line of David.

Christianity changes the story dramatically because it claims Jesus was not only the Messiah of the Jews, but, more importantly, was the Son of God and, by extension, Savior of all Mankind. To the Christian, Jesus not establishing a kingdom in Israel is irrelevant because he rules over a more important Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus' death is a sign of success, not failure.

It's just worth keeping in mind that that perspective, the Christian one, is very much a flipped script and a radical departure from the traditional concept of what a Messiah would look like (and a massive departure from the idea of what a Messiah would look like that Jews are still waiting for).

This post helps prove my point: If the Muslim Jesus doesn't fit the Jewish definition of the messiah, and he doesn't fit the Christian definition of the messiah, then why do they call him the messiah?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I mean, there was no preexisting Jewish tradition that a Messiah would be divine or immune from death. King David is granted the title "Annointed One" (Literally Messiah) and he was neither of those things. He was the powerful and successful king who seized Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Israelite kingdom...which is more or less what the ancient Jews were expecting their Messiah to be: a descendant of David who would seize Jerusalem and the Holy Land and start a new holy Kingdom ruled by the line of David.

Christianity changes the story dramatically because it claims Jesus was not only the Messiah of the Jews, but, more importantly, was the Son of God and, by extension, Savior of all Mankind. To the Christian, Jesus not establishing a kingdom in Israel is irrelevant because he rules over a more important Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus' death is a sign of success, not failure.

It's just worth keeping in mind that that perspective, the Christian one, is very much a flipped script and a radical departure from the traditional concept of what a Messiah would look like (and a massive departure from the idea of what a Messiah would look like that Jews are still waiting for).

This post helps prove my point: If the Muslim Jesus doesn't fit the Jewish definition of the messiah, and he doesn't fit the Christian definition of the messiah, then why do they call him the messiah?

This doesn't really answer the other questions the Muslim account of Jesus raises, but the obvious answer is "because He fits the Muslim definition of the messiah".

[Mopsus]

This post helps prove my point: If the Muslim Jesus doesn't fit the Jewish definition of the messiah, and he doesn't fit the Christian definition of the messiah, then why do they call him the messiah?

This doesn't really answer the other questions the Muslim account of Jesus raises, but the obvious answer is "because He fits the Muslim definition of the messiah".

I get that. It's just, why would anyone believe the Muslim definition of the messiah (which is never actually given to a satisfactory degree) over the Jewish or Christian definitions of the messiah, which predate it by centuries? Which definition is most likely to be authentic, and which is most likely to be a fabrication? But this is a criticism of Islam in general I guess.

If Muslims had a better knowledge of the Bible (sanctified by Muhammad himself as divinely-inspired), they could probably give a respectable answer to my query. I'm sure Muslims believe that everything they need to know is already contained in the Quran, and I guess I understand that, but I still think that that ignorance is causing us to miss a huge opportunity for interfaith dialogue.