Share on facebook
Share on twitter

THE MATERIAL FOR MY TALK ON JESUS’ DEATH AND RESURRECTION

The following are some of the citations I employed in my talk on the Lord’s death and resurrection with Christian apologist and evangelist Hatun Tash of DCCI ministries (https://youtu.be/EWzygyf2FDU).

THE MATERIAL IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-8 DATED WITHIN 2-3 YEARS OF JESUS’ RESURRECTION

The majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal, believe that this specific tradition which speaks of Jesus’ post-mortem appearances to both disciples and hostile enemies such as James, was formulated within 2-3 years after Christ’s physical, bodily resurrection!

Although somewhat lengthy, the comments of noted NT Evangelical scholar Gary R. Habermas on this issue are worth repeating, especially in regard to the meaning of the Greek word historesai that Paul uses to explain the reason why he went up to meet Peter and James:

Beyond Paul’s own experience, this apostle presents plenty of additional evidence for the claim that Jesus had appeared to his early followers. Essentially all critical scholars today agree that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s) that summarizes the content of the Christian gospel. Jesus the Christ died for human sin, was buried and raised from the dead, afterwards appearing to both individuals as well as groups of witnesses. While Paul penned the words, he is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to his listeners years before (1 Cor 15:1-2) what he had received from other, as the very heart of his message (1 Cor 15:3). If he were writing today, he might have footnoted his source! Thus this testimony is actually years earlier than the book of 1 Corinthians. Reginald Fuller indicates the scholarly agreement here: “It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition.”

So Paul provides a straight forward explanation that he delivered to his audience what he had first received from others (1 Cor 15:3), which are the equivalent terms for passing rabbinic tradition to others (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). Besides this clear declaration of his actions, there are many other indications that this is exactly what happened. The sentence structure, diction, verbal parallelism, the threefold sequence of “and that,” as well as the presence of several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk 24:34) and James, and indications that there may have been an Aramaic original all point clearly to this tradition being pre-Pauline. Critical scholars agree that Paul received it from others.

The most popular view among scholars is that Paul first received this very early material when he visited Jerusalem just three years after his conversion. He visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:18-19), both of whom are listed as having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5, 7).

Stronger evidence to support this conclusion comes from Paul’s use of the verb historesai in Galatians 1:18, which is usually not very helpfully translated into English. The Greek term indicates that Paul visited Peter for the purpose of investigating a particular subject. The immediate context reveals the subject: Paul’s topic for discussion was ascertaining the nature of the gospel message (Gal 1:11-2:10). And Jesus’ resurrection was the focus of the gospel message (1 Cor 15:3-4; Gal 1:11, 16). Without it, faith is vain (1 Cor 15:14, 17).

Critical scholars usually concede that this pre-Pauline tradition(s) originated at an exceptionally early date. For Ulrich Wilckens, this content “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” Walter Kasper even thinks that this ‘ancient text’ was possibly “in use by the end of 30 A.D.”

Perhaps surprisingly, skeptics frequently even agree. Skeptic Gerd Lüdemann asserts that “the elements in the traditions are to be dated to THE FIRST TWO YEARS after the crucifixion of Jesus… NOT LATER THAN THREE YEARS… The formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor. 15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 C.E.” Philosopher Thomas Sheehan thinks that this pre-Pauline formula ‘probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to WITHIN TWO TO FOUR YEARS of the crucifixion. Michael Goulder holds that this resurrection report “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”

Other skeptics are often not shy about expressing their agreement. In fact, most of the critical scholars who date these events conclude that Paul received this material within just a few years after Jesus’ death, in the early or mid 30s. We will see how the existence and circumstances at such an early date translate to additional eyewitness testimony besides Paul’s.

Paul was exceptionally careful to ascertain the content of the gospel message, which centered on the resurrection. To do so, he made a second trip to Jerusalem specifically for the purpose of checking out his gospel preaching (Gal 2:1-10). Amazingly, he states his fear that perhaps he had been teaching the wrong message (Gal 2:2). Some think that Acts 15:1-35 describes an amazing third trip to Jerusalem to do the same. Paul obviously desired to be absolutely positive of the gospel truth! Further, Paul was careful to ask his questions of the proper authorities – the chief apostles. In his initial trip, he met with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:18-20). On the second occasion, he met with these same two men, plus the apostle John (Gal 2:9). Martin Hengel points out that “evidently the tradition of I Cor 15.3 had been subjected to many tests” by Paul.

It is easy to overlook the significance of these meetings. The four men who met together on the latter occasion were certainly the chief apostles in the early church, and each one had been an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:5-7). Therefore, when Paul received their confirmation that his gospel was correct (Gal 2:9; cf. Acts 15:23-35), we have their assurance that Paul’s message of Jesus’ resurrection appearances agreed with their own experiences. Certainly, if they thought that Paul erred on the central fact of the gospel, this would have created grave problems, especially given the apostolic concern to insure doctrinal truth in the early church.

So Paul provides more than his own eyewitness testimony, as in (1) above. During his trips to inquire of the three senior apostles in Jerusalem, Paul passed their examination regarding his gospel proclamation. Their blessings assume their own eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’ resurrection appearances, since they had also experienced the risen Jesus. Here we are but one step removed from additional eyewitness testimony.

Not only did the other apostles confirm Paul’s gospel message, but we also have the reverse testimony. After reporting a list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances, Paul explains that he knew what the other apostles were preaching on this subject and that it was the same as his teaching about Jesus’ appearances (1 Cor 15:11). Together, they proclaimed the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:12, 15). So we have both the previous, more indirect apostolic confirmation of Paul’s gospel message provided by the apostolic leadership, as well as Paul’s firsthand, more direct approval of their resurrection message. (Habermas, To Everyone An Answer (), eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2004], Part 3: Christ And Miracles, Chapter 11: The Case For Christ’s Resurrection, pp. 183-186; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Renowned NT scholar James D. G. Dunn states, “This tradition [of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances], we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death” (Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 2003], Volume 1, p. 855; bold emphasis ours).

We will have more from Dunn in the next section.

THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF LUKE-ACTS

Noted Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig notes:

“… The gospel writers have a proven tract record of historical reliability. Again let’s look at just one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament.

“Luke is the gospel author who writes most self-consciously as a historian. In the preface he writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1-4 RSV)

“This preface is written in classical Greek such as the great Greek historians used; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, if he wants to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it’s based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

“Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not himself an eyewitness to Jesus’ life. But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: ‘We set sail from Troas to Samothrace,’ ‘We remained in Philippi some days,’ ‘As we were going to the place of prayer,’ etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. Eventually he accompanies Paul back to Israel and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was, in fact, in firsthand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry in Jerusalem.

“Skeptical critics have done backflips to try to avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally; it was just a literary device that was common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage but take place on land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy. There just was no literary device in the ancient world of sea voyages in the first-person plural–the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There’s no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life while in Jerusalem.” (Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision [Published by David C. Cook, 2010], Personal Interlude: A Philosopher’s Journey of Faith, Part Two, 8. Who Was Jesus?, pp. 191- 193; bold emphasis ours)

And:

“Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with the secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-tooth comb, pulling out a wealth of historical detail, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details that only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated. From the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.

“According to Professor Sherwin-White, ‘The confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.’ The judgment of Sir William Ramsey, a world-famous archaeologist, still stands: ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank… This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.’

“Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability, as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.” (Ibid, pp. 193-194)

And, despite the fact that he erroneously assumes that Luke’s reference to a census in Luke 2 and the statements concerning Theudas/Judas in Acts 5 are mistaken,  NT scholar James D. G. Dunn, nevertheless, recognizes that the author of Acts was quite amazingly accurate due to his involvement with some of the eyewitnesses and events which he mentions:

(2) Those deductions are strengthened by the ‘we’ passages in Acts. They certainly provide prima facie evidence that the author was personally present during the sequences described (the beginning and end of Paul’s Aegean mission and his final arrival in and departure from Palestine). But one of the implications which can obviously be drawn from them also is that the author had opportunity to consult participants in the early phases of his story. According to the first ‘we’ passage (16.10-17) he spent some time in the company of Silas, one of the leading men among the brothers’ (15.22), that is, in this case the Jerusalem disciples. According to the third ‘we’ passage (21.8-18), he stayed in Caesarea for several days with Philip (21.8, 10), one of the leaders of the Hellenist group which emerged in ch. 6 and the evangelist of Samaria (ch. 8); there he encountered the prophet Agabus (21.10), who would have provided another link with the earlier history of both Jerusalem and Antioch (11.27-28); and on the way to Jerusalem itself he stayed at the house of Mnason of Cyprus, ‘an early disciple’ (21.16). The lack of first-hand (‘we’) reports during Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea (22-26) is surprising but could have a number of explanations, and the ‘we’ 27.1 may be sufficient for the conclusion that the author must have spent some time in Caesarea, during which he would have had plenty of opportunity to consult ‘those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’. A reasonable deduction, therefore, is that Luke both had personal involvement with Paul’s mission and that he was able to draw on first-hand (eyewitness) reports for at least much of the substance of the earlier episodes which he narrates in Acts.” (Dunn, Beginning From Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making Volume 2) [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K., 2009], 21. The Sources, pp. 75-76; bold emphasis ours)

And:

(3) Often overlooked in assessments of Acts is the degree of concurrence between Acts and the data to be gleaned from Paul’s letters as to his basic movements. The point can be documented effectively in a chart on the following pages.

The details will be reviewed as we proceed. But the overall impression strongly suggests that the author of Acts was well informed about Paul’s life and mission.

(4) It is a striking fact that whereas with the Gospel of Luke there are only a few details which can be correlated with information from non-biblical sources, in the case of the Acts of Luke the number of such details is substantial. For example, the striking account of the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12.20-23) is paralleled in its main details by Josephus (Ant. 19.343[sic]-46) and must have been the subject of many a story-teller’s performance. Luke’s knowledge of it, as no doubt Josephus’s, probably came from such ‘common knowledge’, not from any literary source, with Luke’s ‘own’ take on the story most evident in the final verse (12.23).

“A feature worth noting is that examples of these correlations become frequent from the beginning of the ‘we’ passages onwards. Indeed, since William Ramsay was converted to a high view of the reliability of Acts, students of Acts have regularly been impressed by Luke’s historical accuracy on various small details on which a writer with no personal experience of the events he narrates might well have stumbled. Luke knows that Herod Antipas was only titled ‘tetrach’ of Galilee (Acts 13.1), whereas Agrippa I and II were both properly titled ‘king’ (12.1; 25.13), since both were granted the royal title by Gaius and Claudius. He uses the correct title ‘proconsul’ for the Roman governors of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus (13.7), and of Corinth, Gallio (18.12), the only NT writer to use the proper Greek equivalent (anthypatos) of the Latin proconsul, governor of a senatorial province, whereas Felix and Festus were only procurators of Judea, governor (hegemon) of a minor province (23.24; 26.30). Philippi is correctly described as a ‘colony’ (kolonia, 16.12) and its chief magistrates praetors (strategoi, 16.20). The city magistrates of Thessalonica, however, are properly designated ‘politarchs’ (politarchai, 17.6), a title which Luke could not have derived from literary sources, since it is not attested in Greek literature known to us, though we know the title from Macedonian inscriptions. His report of an expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius (18.2) is confirmed by the famous report of Suetonius cited above… His knowledge of the several Ephesians officials named in Acts 19 is exact – proconsul (19.38), secretary of state/town clerk (grammateus, 19.35), and Asiarchs (asiarchoi, 19.31), men of status within the civic administration; and he uses the correct term, agoraios, for a provincial assize in Ephesus (19.38). And his knowledge of the rights of Roman citizenship and of judicial procedures reflects the conditions of the middle decades of the first century, not those of the later decades, during which he probably wrote Acts.

“Also worth noting is the extent to which Josephus in particular confirms many of Luke’s details which otherwise we might attribute to his story-telling imagination: the rebels, Judas of Galilee and Theudas (5.36-37 – even if Luke is confused as to their dates), and the ‘Egyptian’ (21.38); not only the dating of the procuratorships of Felix and Festus in Judea (23.24; 24.27) and the identity of the high priest Ananias (23.2; 24.1), as well as the names of Felix’s wife (Drusilla, 24.24) and of Agrippa II’s wife (Bernice, 25.13), but also his characterization of Felix, Festus and Agrippa II.

“In an age when there were no almanacs providing ready information regarding titles and dates of officials and no easy access to official records by someone of Luke’s likely rank and status, the slips already indicated are readily explicable. At the same time, the accuracy of such details and representations as have just been listed can hardly be better explained than by Luke’s own involvement with those caught up in the events (or with the events themselves), or by his having access to eyewitness accounts of the events.” (Ibid, pp. 77, 80-81; bold emphasis ours)

THE QURAN AND AHADITH ON JESUS’ DEATH

Fact 1

The verse, which seems to be denying Christ’s crucifixion,

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. S. 4:157-158 Pickthall

Is worded in virtually the same way as the following passage,

Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower. S. 8:17 Pickthall

Which no Muslim would interpret to mean that not a single pagan was killed at the hands of Muhammad’s companions at the battle of Badr.

This in turn supports my interpretation that Q. 4:157 isn’t denying that the Jews killed Jesus. Rather, the text is simply affirming that they wouldn’t have been able to murder him if it were not Allah’s will for Christ to die at their hands. The text further denies that Jesus was killed for the reason the Jews thought, namely, they took his death as proof that he was a false prophet accursed by God. However, by raising Jesus to himself Allah was vindicating Christ and refuting the Jews for thinking that their murdering him  meant that he was a false messiah.

Fact 2

In the Quran, John the Baptist’s life and death is paralleled with the life and death of Jesus. In fact the story of John is juxtaposed with Jesus’ story in the two places which it appears within the Quran (cf. 3:33-56; 19:1-35).

In light of these facts, note how the Quran describes their respective missions:

Peace on him the day he was born, and the day he dieth and the day he shall be raised alive! S. 19:15 Pickthall

And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive… Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! S. 19:31, 33 Pickthall

A Muslim cannot deny that John was born, subsequently died, and will eventually be raised alive. Therefore, the same must be true in the case with Jesus, with one notable exception: Christ was born, died and was then raised back to life before physically ascending into heaven. That Jesus must have died before being resurrected is confirmed by his supposed claim that Allah has commanded him to give alms as long as he remains alive. Now unless a Muslim wants to argue that Jesus is still paying alms in heaven, then this is further proof that Christ must have died before ascending into the presence of God.

Fact 3

The verb tawaffa, from wafa, is used to describe Jesus’ death:

Remember when God said, “O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die (innee mutawaffeeka), and will take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I will place those who follow thee above those who believe not, until the day of resurrection. Then, to me is your return, and wherein ye differ will I decide between you. S. 3:55 Rodwell

I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die (tawaffaytanee), Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. S. 5:117 Shakir

Whenever this verb is used with God or angels as the subject, it means death unless there is something explicit in the context to suggest otherwise:

“The root form wafa, with the three consonants wf and y is not found in the Quran. We do, however, find two instances of the elative of the corresponding adjective (9:111 and 53:41), which suggest that the meaning of the root form is `to fulfill (a promise)’ or `to be complete’.

Form II, waffa, occurs eighteen times as a finite verb and once as a participle:

In one instance, where Abraham is the subject and the object is not expressed, the meaning seems to be close to that of the root form, `to fulfill [a promise]'(53:37).

In every other instance the meaning is `to pay/repay in full’ and the context is the last judgement when God will recompense people for their actions in this life (active: 3:57, 4:173, 11:15,111, 24:25,39, 35:30, 46:19, passive: 2:272,281, 3:25, 3:161,185, 8:60, 16:111, 39:10,70, active participle: 11:109).

Form IV, awfa, also occurs eighteen times as a finite verb and once as a participle:

Frequently, it means `to fulfil (a covenant, vow, promise or obligation)’ (with human subject: 2:40, 3:76, 5:1, 6:152, 13:20, 16:91, 17:34, 22:29, 48:10, 76:7, active participle 2:177. With God as subject 2:40).

It can also mean `to give full (measure)’ (with human subject: 6:152, 7:85, 11:85, 12:59,88, 17:35, 26:181).

Form X, istawaffa, occurs only once where it has the meaning `demand full payment’, `exact in full’ (83:2).

Form VI, tawaffa, occurs 25 times as a finite verb and once as an active participle:

With angels or angelic messengers as the subject it means `receive’ or `gather’ [at death] (4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 8:50, 16:28,32, 32:11, 47:27). Cf. one instance where death itself is the subject (4:15).

With God as the subject it seems to mean:

(a) `to receive in death‘ or `cause to die‘ (10:104, 16:70, 39:42),

(b) `to receive in death‘ or `cause to die‘ prematurely (Muhammad 10:46, 13:40, 40:77, the pious 3:193, 7:126, 12:101),

(c) `to receive’ souls in sleep, which is likened to death (6:60, 39:42),

(d) `to receive’ Jesus (5:117, participle 3:55).

In the passive it is a euphemism for death, particularly a premature death (2:234, 240 22:5, 40:67).” (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1991], pp. 117-118; bold emphasis ours)

Fact 4

The Islamic scripture also employs the same language in referring to the death of the messengers before Muhammad,

And Muhammad is but a messenger. Verily all Messengers (al-rusulu) have passed away before him. If then he dies or is slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm ALLAH at all. And ALLAH will certainly reward the grateful. S. 3:144 Sher Ali

That it does for those living before the time of Christ,

The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger, all the Messengers (al-rusulu) have (like him) passed away before him, his mother was a highly truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the arguments for their good, yet see, how they are turned away (from the truth). S. 5:75 Amatul Rahman Omar https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/st9.htm

Since no Muslim would deny that this text affirms that all the apostles died before Jesus’ ministry then consistency demands that they interpret the passage, which mentions the death of the messengers before Muhammad, in the same manner. But to do so is to admit that Christ must have also died before being raised back to physical life and his subsequent ascension into God’s own presence.

Fact 5

The following hadith,

Narrated Ibn Masud:

As if I saw the Prophet talking about one of the Prophets whose nation had beaten him and caused him to bleed, while he was cleaning the blood of his face and saying, “O Allah! Forgive my nation for they have no knowledge.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 683 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=56&translator=1&start=0&number=683)

  1. It is related that ‘Abdullah said, “It is as if I could visualise the Prophet recounting about one of the Prophets whose people had beaten him and made him bleed. While the blood WAS RUNNING DOWN his face, he was saying, ‘O Allah, forgive my people! They do not know.’” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 64. Book of the Prophets http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari26.html#prophets)
  2. It was narrated that Ibn Mas’ood said: A man among the Ansar said something objectionable about the Prophet and I could not refrain from telling the Prophet about it. I wish that I could have sacrificed all my family and my wealth (rather than have uttered it). He said: “They annoyed Moosa with more than this and he was patient.” Then he told us that a Prophet was rejected by his people and they wounded him in the head when he brought the message of Allah to them. And he was wiping the blood from his forehead (and saying), O Allah forgive my people for they do not know.

Comments: [Saheeh because of corroborating evidence, its isnad is hasan] (English Translation of Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: Hadith No. 2823 to 4376, Translated by Nasiruddin Al-Khattab, Edited by Huda Al-Khattab [Darussalam Publishers, 2012], Volume 3, pp. 584-585)

  1. It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ood said: When the Messenger of Allah shared out the flocks of Hunain at al-Ji’ranah, they crowded around him and the Messenger of Allah said: “Allah sent one of His slaves to his people and they struck him and wounded him in the head. And he started wiping the blood from his forehead and saying: Lord forgive my people, they do not know.” ‘Abdullah said: It is as if I can see the Messenger of Allah showing how that man wiped the blood from his forehead and said: Lord forgive my people, for they do not know.

Comments: [Saheeh because of corroborating evidence, its isnad is hasan] (Ibid., p. 599)

Resembles the words of the Lord Jesus from the cross:

“There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, `Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.’” Luke 23:32-34 New King James Version (NKJV)

In this next narration,

Narrted Ibn Abbas:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You will be resurrected (and assembled) bare-footed, naked and uncircumcised.” The Prophet then recited the Divine Verse:– “As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it: A promise We have undertaken. Truly we shall do it.” (21.104) He added, “The first to be dressed will be Abraham. Then some of my companions will take to the right and to the left. I will say: ‘My companions! ‘It will be said, ‘They had been renegades since you left them.’ I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: ‘And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you forgive them, You, only You are the All-Mighty the All-Wise.’” (5.117-118)

Narrated Quaggas, “Those were the apostates who renegade from Islam during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who fought them”.  (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 656 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=55&translator=1&start=0&number=656)

Muhammad describes his subsequent death in the language attributed to Jesus in Q. 5:117, cited above. Since Allah “took” Muhammad by causing him to die, this affirms that Jesus was also taken by death.

Related articles

Muhammad

Allah