DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Katoabralia** · 10-14-2010, 12:00 AM

Although not all accept the Q source hyposthesis, the majority do. In regards to whether crucifixion was mentioned in the document or not, that makes no difference as the Quran already states that it was made to appear as if they had crucified the Messiah. I'm sure some commentators of the Quran have explained that a Roman soldier who had tried to arrest Isa was made to look like him and was crucified in his place. So why wouldn't the Christian texts include the account? It's not like they were told the plan.

Yes, most of them do. Most of the scholars are quite radical and atheist too. The whole theory is based on the similarities between the three synoptic gospel. That is all there is. If this doesen't matter, why was it ever brought up? Don't you find it problematic that Allah caused people to be decieved and basically started Christianity? Isn't this the conclusion from you views?

10-14-2010, 12:00 AM	#9
Katoabralia Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 403 Senior Member	Although not all accept the Q source hyposthesis, the majority do. In regards to whether crucifixion was mentioned in the document or not, that makes no difference as the Quran already states that it was made to appear as if they had crucified the Messiah. I'm sure some commentators of the Quran have explained that a Roman soldier who had tried to arrest Isa was made to look like him and was crucified in his place. So why wouldn't the Christian texts include the account? It's not like they were told the plan. Yes, most of them do. Most of the scholars are quite radical and atheist too. The whole theory is based on the similarities between the three synoptic gospel. That is all there is. If this doesen't matter, why was it ever brought up? Don't you find it problematic that Allah caused people to be decieved and basically started Christianity? Isn't this the conclusion from you views?
	Quote