The biggest contradiction in Quran. Part 2. The crucifixion

[Jason Voorhees]

so Christians shouldn’t read the bible because it could very well be influenced by political idelogies etc.?

if 100 people say they saw the same thing, but they were all looking at an illusion created by god, they all saying the wrong thing.

They saw someone that looks like jesus sent by god that was crucified, not jesus himself.

@Ahmed88 @dhusc

Historical reliability doesn't require
'perfection,' it requires corroboration. Even if you ignore the Bible entirely, Roman and Jewish historians who had no Christian ideology and infact hated early Christians still confirm the crucifixion. If the event was faked or the person was substituted, there would be a record of that controversy in the 1st century but there's none and it only appears 600 years later. How is this possible?

 

[cortisolman2]

It isn't just Christian scholars. Agnostic Bart Ehrman Jewish Paula Fredriksen and even a few modern islamic scholars accept crucifixion. They don't do this based on 'divine intervention' but on the same rules of evidence used for Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. Scholars reject it not because they are biased but it is based on the fact that every 1st century source Christian, Jewish, and Roman agrees on the physical event. whereas the substitution theory only appeared 600 years later
Bible can have all the contradictions in the world but it doesn't change the fact that the two accounts of this specific event cannot both be historically accurate.

theres no logic in this because imagine if it is subsitittion "good" could make him look exactly like Jesus to the atom and take the real jesus to heaven to bring back to the earth later you wouldn't be able to tell either ways if it was the "substitute" or the "real " Jesus

if im not mistaken i think you guys have an anti christ too? who i goign to save you guys from him?

 

[AppealGod123]

Historical reliability doesn't require
'perfection,' it requires corroboration. Even if you ignore the Bible entirely, Roman and Jewish historians who had no Christian ideology and infact hated early Christians still confirm the crucifixion. If the event was faked or the person was substituted, there would be a record of that controversy in the 1st century but there's none and it only appears 600 years later. How is this possible?

The Basilideans (c. 120–140 AD)

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (c. 2nd-3rd Century)

both believed jesus wasnt crucified

 

[cortisolman2]

Historical reliability doesn't require
'perfection,' it requires corroboration. Even if you ignore the Bible entirely, Roman and Jewish historians who had no Christian ideology and infact hated early Christians still confirm the crucifixion. If the event was faked or the person was substituted, there would be a record of that controversy in the 1st century but there's none and it only appears 600 years later. How is this possible?

because they couldnt tell that it was subsititute if gods all powerfull he could make an exact replica cant he? he can if we go further he was totrutred and was bleading everywhere you really think they could telll the diffrenece between the real and the fake?

 

[Jason Voorhees]

theres no logic in this because imagine if it is subsitittion "good" could make him look exactly like Jesus to the atom and take the real jesus to heaven to bring back to the earth later you wouldn't be able to tell either ways if it was the "substitute" or the "real " Jesus

if im not mistaken i think you guys have an anti christ too? who i goign to save you guys from him?

If you just give the divine intervention then this conversation is pointless. You are choosing to believe in a divine deception that misled everyone-
including Jesus' own mother and followers for six centuries until the Quran was written. There is no reasonable argument then because you can claim such things for almost anything. As for the Antichrist (Dajjal), both faiths believe Jesus returns to defeat him.

 

[cortisolman2]

Unlike the Quran, which is claimed to be a single direct revelation from one person, the Bible is a collection of 66 different books written by dozens of authors over 1,500 years. Christians acknowledge it was written by humans inspired by God, so variations in details like how many angels were at a tomb etc are expected and accepted besides this change thd historical fact of the crucifixion. Your reddit link is also regurgitation of the same points I made in OP

so your just saying your book is written by humans and is an innovation to the original book that was revealed to jesus ? why should we belive a book that has been altered instead of a book that has stayed the same from the start and both claim to be from god and both have simiar context

 

[Jason Voorhees]

The Basilideans (c. 120–140 AD)

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (c. 2nd-3rd Century)

both believed jesus wasnt crucified

Another argument that I have already read. You're citing Gnostic sects like the
Basilideans who believed the physical world was an evil trap and that Jesus was a shapeshifting spirit. They didn't deny the crucifixion based on evidence. but on their theology. Ironically, these same sources you're using also claimed that the God of the Old Testament whom Muslims worship as Allah was an 'ignorant, evil demon' (the Demiurge)

 

[cortisolman2]

If you just give the divine intervention then this conversation is pointless. You are choosing to believe in a divine deception that misled everyone-
including Jesus' own mother and followers for six centuries until the Quran was written. There is no reasonable argument then because you can claim such things for almost anything. As for the Antichrist (Dajjal), both faiths believe Jesus returns to defeat him.

the only difference is that our jesus come from the heaven becaus ehe never didied and your one revives?
we should belive the newer book no? the one which has the most latest infos instead of an altered book whos message has been changed over a 1000 years

 

[wilvakc]

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

n

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

not christian but interesting post

 

[Jason Voorhees]

so your just saying your book is written by humans and is an innovation to the original book that was revealed to jesus ? why should we belive a book that has been altered instead of a book that has stayed the same from the start and both claim to be from god and both have simiar context

Again moving the goal post. There is once again zero proof of the Injil. Jesus was a preacher, not an author

 

[JOTAROSON]

Часть 1 здесь

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

Это самое большое противоречие в исламе и оно имеет центральное значение для христианства. Поэтому давайте это проясним.

Распятие Иисуса считается неоспоримым фактом. Иудейские, христианские, римские, атеистические историки и теологи сходятся во мнении, что Иисус Христос был распят; фактически, казнь Иисуса из Назарета при Понтии Пилате (римском префекте Иудеи, ~26-36 гг. н.э.) является одним из наиболее достоверных фактов о его жизни, наряду с его крещением. Это считается общепринятым фактом и даже не подлежит обсуждению.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Это подтверждается даже многочисленными нехристианскими источниками, не входящими в Евангелие.

Тацит (римский историк, «Анналы», ~116 г. н.э.): «Христос, от которого произошло название [христиане], претерпел высшее наказание [распятие] во время правления Тиберия от рук одного из наших прокураторов, Понтия Пилата».


View attachment 4989459

Иосиф Флавий (еврейский историк, «Иудейские древности», ~93 г. н.э.): называет Иисуса мудрецом, казненным Пилатом на кресте. Иосиф Флавий также уточнил, что Иаков — «брат Иисуса, которого называли Христом».

View attachment 4989460

Все упомянутые мной источники относятся к римской, еврейской и нехристианской точкам зрения, и все они независимо друг от друга сообщали об одном и том же событии слово в слово, как оно было написано в Евангелиях, и пришли к одному и тому же выводу. Ни один древний историк или даже христианские ненавистники, которые критиковали Иисуса за его учение, как, например, Цельс, не отрицали само распятие; разногласия и споры касались его смысла или последующих утверждений о воскресении.

View attachment 4989476

Мы даже обнаружили археологические свидетельства, подтверждающие эту практику: останки распятых в I веке (например, пяточная кость «Йоханана» с гвоздем) подтверждают, что методы распятия в Риме в Иудее точно соответствуют описаниям в Евангелиях.

View attachment 4989485

Однако сура Ан-Ниса (4:157) прямо противоречит историческим свидетельствам о распятии Иисуса.

View attachment 4989479

Это можно найти только в исламских текстах и нигде больше. Коран — божественное откровение, а значит, непогрешимый, поэтому более ранние источники (Евангелия, исторические записи) должны быть ошибочными, искаженными (тахриф) или иллюзорными, как сказано в аяте 4:157, и в целом мусульманские ученые не приводят ни одного убедительного объяснения или аргумента в пользу этого.

Некоторые мусульмане утверждают, что этот стих лишь отрицает, что иудеям удалось убить Иисуса (это сделали римляне), или что Иисус на самом деле не «умер» в духовном смысле, или что его явление было обманчивым божественным актом, или что Иисуса подменили кем-то другим, а некоторые современные толкователи, такие как некоторые ахмадийцы или ученые, например, Шабир Алли, в более мягких интерпретациях допускают распятие, которое не привело к окончательной смерти. Но все это в основном уклонения от ответа, которые неисламские ученые и историки просто отвергают.

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Христиане считают распятие центральным событием искупления и исполнения пророчеств. Распятие Христа является главным событием в христианстве, в то время как мусульмане считают его несовместимым с достоинством пророка и суверенитетом Бога, поэтому эта тема остается деликатной, но это не отменяет огромного количества противопоказаний, существующих в Коране. Есть еще два подобных противопоказания, о которых я расскажу позже. Об этом я напишу в отдельной теме.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

the only difference is that our jesus come from the heaven becaus ehe never didied and your one revives?
we should belive the newer book no? the one which has the most latest infos instead of an altered book whos message has been changed over a 1000 years

I'm talking from a third person perspective here. I even said in OP that the resurrection hasn't been proven or the after math. To a historian, saying Jesus 'never died' but everyone saw him die is simply saying it was a miracle. You can believe that by faith, but you can't call it history and expect a non Muslim to believe in it.

 

[cortisolman2]

Again moving the goal post. There is once again zero proof of the Injil. Jesus was a preacher, not an author

so your sayign the book your guys belive in doesnt exist? you belive in what jesus said? and then people made a book on this? how do you believe people paraphrasing jesus instead of god sending muhammad revelations?

how can this be a contradiction it clearly says that there was a substittue instead of jesus so it could be true its not really a contradiction i would say jesus coming from heaven to save us is more logical than jesus reviving and coming to save us no?

 

[cortisolman2]

I'm talking from a third person perspective here. I even said in OP that the resurrection hasn't been proven or the after math. To a historian, saying Jesus 'never died' but everyone saw him die is simply saying it was a miracle. You can believe that by faith, but you can't call it history and expect a non Muslim to believe in it.

definetly works out your reasoning here but wouldnt all miracle be voided? jesus turning water into win or god sending firbirds to save makkah?

 

[AppealGod123]

Another argument that I have already read. You're citing Gnostic sects like the
Basilideans who believed the physical world was an evil trap and that Jesus was a shapeshifting spirit. They didn't deny the crucifixion based on evidence. but on their theology. Ironically, these same sources you're using also claimed that the God of the Old Testament whom Muslims worship as Allah was an 'ignorant, evil demon' (the Demiurge)

i dont believe in demiurge, but lets get back to the main point here

again we believe the bible was tampered with, meaning that information that was written about who was crucified and how was probably all changed

 

[cyclen]

Do you realize how ridiculous this whole argument sounds? Debating mythology and defending it this passionately wow the jews were right all along we are all just stupid goyim cattle

 

[Zaref]

Kinda funny how Islam has the least convincing evidence out of all the major world religions (meme religion to anyone with a brain). Yet somehow it has the most pious followers and martyrs

Yeah, because people don't follow any religion based on evidence, whether historical or scientific. Every religion collapses in the face of scientific evidence, such as evolution. Faith isn't supposed to be rational -- rationality and faith are, by nature, contradictory

 

[Zaref]

I don't necessarily see a contradiction here if you're using the faith framework as it doesn't depend on logic, this only seems a problem if you apply rational and moral standards to it -- God has complete authority to do this and needs no rational justification for it.

According to Islam, earlier texts were corrupted, which is its standard counter to Biblical evidence.

This creates an unfalsifiable loop -- Christianity appeals to scripture, Islam says the scripture was altere.

This argument proceeds nowhere except a circular loop.

 

[deludedsuhumanbald]

Those same people went on to genocide Israelites again, revenge would be reasonable when they’ve had to deal with Amalekites murdering their people for years, and again, it doesn’t have to be interpreted as a command for genocide because other verses like Joshua 10:20 show clear exaggeration in war texts
Idrc about animals dying, back then that’s how impurity worked, that’s why shit like pork was prohibited, it was a spiritual thing, we don’t live in the same times under the same covenant

Animals dying is horrible but the context is key, they go to Heaven anyways and people abuse and slaughter animals TO THIS DAY BY MILLIONS SO STFU U SATANIC HYPOCRITES

Right??

 

[Mogmo]

I already did in the thread nigga. Literally ask on Google was jesus Christ crucified. It's literally a historical fact.

In islam jesus was not crucified but taken to heaven by god and judas was made to look like him then judas was crucified

 

[unloveableltn]

DNR
nihilism>

 

[connive]

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

Overall, this was one of the best posts I’ve read on this forum. I never expected something so based to show up. Thanks for pinging me, bro. I’m not sure what your religious beliefs are, but nonetheless, huge respect for being knowledgeable about various ancient historians. That’s not something that’s very common in modern society. There’s only one claim I would like to give some clarity on.

Ik most people here aren’t religious, but I pray that this clarification I’m writing teaches or benefits any of you in some way. I spent about 6 hours researching and writing this, so please don't DNR this.

Claim that needs clarification: "Josephus also clarified James as 'the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

The word for brother that is being translated here is (ἀδελφὸν/adelphos - brother). It can be used to define a literal brother of the same womb; however, in Greek literature and the New Testament, it is commonly used to refer to cousins, kinsmen, or a close male relative.

Both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teach the dogma that Mary is a perpetual virgin, meaning she was a virgin before the birth of Christ, and remained a virgin all the way until her assumption. This is why she received the title “Ever-Virgin Mary” at the Second Council of Constantinople. This is a non-negotiable belief in both the Eastern and Western churches I mentioned above. This belief is not only rooted in scripture but also in tradition and the consistent teachings of the Church Fathers.

We also teach that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Since Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant, if we read Ezekiel 44:2, it is clear that this is the prophecy on Mary’s perpetual virginity. This belief was taught by various Church Fathers, including but not limited to St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc.

“And he said to me, 'This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” Ezekiel 44:2 RSVCE

It is clear here that the Lord passes through, leaving the gate sealed. Similarly, how the womb of Mary was sealed (virginity), and the Lord passed through the womb of Mary, leaving it sealed (maintaining her virginity post Christ’s birth).

Eastern Orthodox tradition teaches that the brothers (adelphoi) of Jesus are either his first cousins or his step-brothers. The stepbrother tradition is the most common from what I’ve seen.

There are various beliefs based on tradition in regard to Jesus’ brothers (adelphoi).

The Eastern Orthodox belief (OCA):

1. The most popular teaching by the Eastern Orthodox is that St. James Adelphotheos (the Brother of God) was the son of St. Joseph from his first marriage. It is believed that St. Joseph was a widow and all of this took place before he was betrothed to the Holy Theotokos (Mother of God). The Orthodox tradition teaches that Joseph also had three other sons with his first wife, including St. James Adelphotheos, St. Joseph Barsabbas, St. Simeon of Jerusalem, and St. Jude. These make up the Adelphotheoi (Brothers of the Lord), however the title Adelphotheos is almost exclusively applied to St. James Adelphotheos.

“The Holy Apostle James, the Brother of God (Adelphótheos) was the son of the Righteous Joseph before he was betrothed to the Most Holy Theotokos. Tradition says that Joseph had other sons with his first wife. Thus, James was called the Lord's brother. Saint James had been a Nazirite, a man or woman consecrated to God for a limited time. During the period of consecration the Nazirites vowed to abstain from wine and other intoxicating beverages, they could not cut their hair, and all contact with a corpse was forbidden (Numbers 6:1-21)."

Apostle James, the Brother of the Lord. Orthodox Church in America. (n.d.). https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2020/10/23/103039-apostle-james-the-brother-of-the-lord

Who were the “brothers” of Jesus? St. Michael Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church. (2025, December 17). https://stmichaeltx.org/orthodox-101/saints-the-theotokos/who-were-the-brothers-of-jesus/


This would fit the description of John 19:25 RSVCE, “So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.”

You can then cross-reference this to Matthew 27:56 RSVCE, “among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee.”

Sister (Greek: adelphē) can also refer to a close relative or sister-in-law, not necessarily a blood sibling.


The Roman Catholic Belief:

1. Mary of Clopas is the sister-in-law of the Virgin Mary. Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph the Betrothed. Mary of Clopas was married to Joseph’s brother, making her the Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law, which explains why the word “sister” (adelphē) is used in John 19:25. The “brothers” of Jesus (James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude) mentioned in the Gospels are believed to be first cousins of Jesus, because they are the children of Mary of Clopas and Clopas.

“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.” (CCC 500)

Wong, C. Y. (n.d.). Mary of Cleophas: EWTN. EWTN Global Catholic Television Network. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/mary-of-cleophas-1080#:~:text=MARY%20OF%20CLEOPHAS-,Christopher%20Y%20Wong,19:25)%20was%20present.


Both beliefs are acceptable because they agree that Mary was not a blood-sister, but close-kinship (adelphē) with Mary of Clopas, Clopas’ linkage to Joseph’s family, and the “brothers” (adelphos) is being used to define (cousins or step-relatives).

In conclusion, whether you lean more towards the step-brother or cousin interpretation, the historic Christian understanding is that these “brothers” are not to be interpreted as the biological sons of the ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God.

In regard to the Sacred Tradition and Theology that has been passed down to us by the Church Fathers, we can infer that when the word “brother” adelphos is used when describing the relations of Christ, it was either meant to define a step-brother, cousin, or close kinsman/relation, and not to define a biological son of the Theotokos other than Jesus Christ himself.

Once again, whether you accept what I am telling you or not, I hope you have learned something, if anything, from this post.

 

[SplashJuice]

We don't actually have direct evidence of the crucifixion (or even Jesus existing), the non Christian sources like Tacitus, come from them relaying off already established Christian sources. Paul isn't a neutral source either.

 

[SplashJuice]

I'm not sure if you read the Islamic verse, but it actually supports what you said. It says the crucifixion looks like it happened, it appears that way, so even if there was credible history on it, that supports the evidence since most people believed in the appearance.

 

[topology]

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

I've not read what you wrote but I'm guessing it's about the fact that the Quran says Jesus didn't die while all other accounts say he did. The point is that God replaced Jesus with a replica. It's not testifiable and cannot constitute as a contradiction from what I know.

I believe that's what the answer is I may recall incorrectly.

 

[chadzay]

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

Rare Low IQ post ngl, if you take it from the islamic angle. Since Allah made it seem like Jesus was on the cross but didn’t die, but was instead saved. There would obviously be accounts of people saying this when it truly doesn’t happen. So the “historical evidence” wouldn’t contradict this since it seemed like this happened but never did. So I don’t see where the contradictions are occurring. Also if you admit the bible has contradictions I don’t see the point of following it bc that means there was clearly some tampering of the text and possible doctrines which could severely affect your beliefs. God is all knowing and a contradiction would mean he isn’t all knowing. So if a book inspired by gods knowledge has textual contradictions I think you should evaluate ur position before coming for us.


Also if you are gonna say scholars please cite them and show sources. I don’t want some goofy shia or ahmedi scholars who are known kaffirs to be used

 

[ccwb]

S

Part 1 here

One of the biggest contradictions in Quran

In surah 9:30 The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺? Prophet Muhammad claims...

looksmax.org

This the biggest contradiction in Islam by far and is very central to the idea of Christianity. So let's make it clear

The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a "bedrock" fact. Jewish, Christian, Roman, Atheist historians and theologists all agree with the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified infact the execution of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate (Roman prefect of Judea, ~AD 26-36) is one of the most certain facts about his life alongside his baptism. This is considered a universal fact and is not even up for debate.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is even confirmed by multiple different non Christian sources outside the gospel

Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals ~AD 116): "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."


View attachment 4989459

Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews ~AD 93): Refers to Jesus as a wise man executed by Pilate via crucifixion. Josephus also clarified James as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

View attachment 4989460

And the all the sources i mentioned come from Roman, Jewish, and non Christian perspectives and they all independently reported the same event word for word as it was written in the gospels and arrived at the same conclusion. No ancient historian or even Christian haters that bashed jesus on his teachings like Celsus denied the crucifixion itself what they disagreed and disputed about was its meaning or the resurrection claims that followed.

View attachment 4989476

We have even found Archaeological evidence supports the practice: 1st-century crucified remains (e.g., the heel bone of "Yehohanan" with a nail) confirm Roman crucifixion methods in Judea matched Gospel descriptions exactly

View attachment 4989485

But Surah An-Nisa (4:157) directly conflicts with the historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion.

View attachment 4989479

You'll only find this in Islamic texts and nowhere else. The Quran is divine revelation and thus infallible, so earlier sources (Gospels, historical records) must be mistaken, corrupted (tahrif), or illusory as per 4:157 and overall there's 0 convincing explanation and argument given for this by Muslim scholars

Some Muslims argue the verse only denies that the Jews succeeded in killing Jesus (Romans carried it out), or that Jesus didn't truly "die" in a spiritual sense, or that the appearance was deceptive by divine act or that Jesus was substituted for someone else and some modern ones like certain Ahmadis or scholars like Shabir Ally in softer readings allow for a crucifixion that didn't result in permanent death. But all mostly deflections that non islamic scholars and historian simply reject

Islamic views on Jesus's death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 4989507

Christians see the crucifixion as central to atonement and prophecy fulfillment. The crucifixion of Christ is the main event in Christianity while Muslims see it as incompatible with a prophet's dignity and God's sovereignty so it remains a sensitive topic but that doesn't take away from the massive contraindication that exists in Quran. There are 2 more such contraindications that exist that I'll make. A thread about later

sigh