QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Zack on November 20, 2013, 09:37:24 PM
-
Hello,
Just am new here and thought I would introduce myself. My name is Daniel, and am currently doing Post Graduate studies in Islamic Studies. I just wanted to say I am very impressed with this website!!
I am from the "Christian Tauhid" belief, and have been studying with some Islamic scholars for over a decade. Basically my theology is Islamic, however I do not convert to Islam as I really do not view this as the purpose of Prophet Muhammad.
Look forward to chatting
Daniel
-
Welcome to the forum Daniel,
Thank you for your kind words and we look forward to your participation.
It will also be interesting to see the overlap between your beliefs and those of Islam
-
Thank you.....
More than overlap..... The Hawariyuun were muslims (small m) , continuing the one world religion of no god but God, the Hawariyuun made a decision in AD45 based on the Torah to be inclusive and include Gentiles so that, as the Injil says... the 2 will be 1....
From then until the Prophet Muhammad was a sad history of "Replacement Theology"..... , all this was confronted in Mecca......
So here we are, brother..!!
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Salaam Daniel. Welcome to this awesome forum / website. I hope you enjoy it here. Hope to chat with you more. take care Saba :) 8)
-
Salam brother daniel.
and welcome to the forum. looking forward to further discussions.
-
Salam. I'm happy to see you here. A "Christian Tauhid", you are much welcomed. Good luck with your studies. :)
-
al-Salāmu 'alaykum wa rahmatu Allāh Bro Daniel, Welcome to QM Forum and hope you will enjoy our interaction. IF I am not curious will you kindly elaborate what is meant by " Chritian Tauhid" Thanks for sharing.
-
This means that my religious identity (Which is not that important ultimately) is Christian. However I hold to Biblical Monotheism, that is "There is no god but God" , and believe this is the message of the Injil, and of Paul.
This is in contrast to holding to the Catholic creeds which became law for CHristians between 320AD until 451AD. When understanding the that difference between these, the Quran makes a whole lot more sense. In fact, I would say that it is difficult to understand the Quran properly without having a basic understanding church history, because a part of the Quran is talking to Christians and post Bible developments.
Daniel
-
Thanks Bro Daniel for clarification. I know very well that the Book Injeel tells one God and is from One God. If you don't mind I would like to ask you about what I heard that the concept of Trinity is supposed to have come from Saint Paul. If not Who invented the concept ofTrinity? Thanks for sharing.
-
Thanks for your response.
No religion moves from Tauhid to trinity in one step. It was a slow progression over 400 years. The best way to describe it is like a ship that is docked in a port but is not anchored, slowly drifting.
The Hawariyuun (Sahabat Isa) were just as much "Islam" as Nabi Muhammad. Paul was pure Tauhid as well. The beginning days of Christianity were rooted in the Tauhid (Hebrew) teaching. However the descendants of the Hawariyuun (Sahabat setia Isa) were disowned / declared heretics by the non-Semitic peoples (CHristians) and didn't associate with them anymore. That meant the Tauhid teaching began to drift. The greek world was naturally prone to non-Tauhid. When they saw someone do a miracle or an amazing sports ability, that person was considered a god. So for the Greeks, trinity is only natural if there is no real anchor.
The Injil is actually non-trinitarian, but anyone can take verses to support a dogma, the same as the Qur'an.
So in answer to your question, Paul did not create the trinity...... he is very misunderstood.
-
Thanks for clarification. You mean to say that only Greek people believe in Trinity & not others? There several people in USA & Europe who believe in Trinity I think.
-
Sorry, I meant back in Pauls time, the Greek speaking world back then.
These days, maybe 98% of Christians believe in the trinity from all countries. However there are many slight variants. Ultimately they view that there is only one God, but that one God in three persons.
It is my view that modern Islam has gone the other way in response, and the Nabi Isa of the Injil, and of the Quran, is generally not known or understood by Islam today
-
Salaam.
You said:
"It is my view that modern Islam has gone the other way in response, and the Nabi Isa of the Injil, and of the Quran, is generally not known or understood by Islam today"
Kindly elaborate.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
There is no sense in calling one God mixture of three entities. God is only One without anybody besides Him or with Him. Trinity is against Tauhid. God is One & Supreme & nobody is partner in any capacity or form. As per your statistics only 2 per cent are true Christians in the world.
-
Salaam.
You said:
"It is my view that modern Islam has gone the other way in response, and the Nabi Isa of the Injil, and of the Quran, is generally not known or understood by Islam today"
Kindly elaborate.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
In response to your question, I want to begin by saying that islam (small i) is the religion of God, from before the time of Prophet Ibrahim. Nabi Isa is viewed with the foundation that Tauhid is unchanging.
Isa also lived out this understanding, and clearly states that this is the greatest commandment. Isa lived in a context of being confronted by traditions relating to the Sharia of his day (The Torah). And so his responses was revealing God’s mind in regards to Sharia Law. Islam when thinking of Isa needs to separate the post Bible developments of the creeds from the Semitic Isa.
It would be good for Islam to have a careful study of the Quran specifically concerning Isa, as well as the Surah Matthew in the Injil, and develop a “Tauhid based Christology” so that there is freedom to consume the teachings of Isa. This means developing an understanding of Isa as the Kalam Allah…. What does that mean; when he was strengthened by the spirit of Allah… when was that and what does it mean… however most importantly apply the teachings of Isa within Islam. The challenge is to learn out of truth, and not learn out of traditions.
I have a link to help with this, the Tauhid Christology. However I am not sure if I can post links here?
This is foundational in Islam I believe, the Kitab Allah, including the Injil… However some care needs to be taken….many interpretations / translations are Trinitarian slanted. However that is increasingly less as people are becoming aware of unfaithful translations.
Hope this begins to clarify….
-
There is no sense in calling one God mixture of three entities. God is only One without anybody besides Him or with Him. Trinity is against Tauhid. God is One & Supreme & nobody is partner in any capacity or form. As per your statistics only 2 per cent are true Christians in the world.
For you it makes no sense, but for a Greek thinking mindset not rooted in its Hebrew roots, it is the only alternative. The reasons I explained above re how anyone doing what is considered a miracle must be a "god." Generally the gospel of Matthew in particular will make more sense to a Muslim if they truly study it, than a Christian.... as the context of the world of Isa is islam.
However even then, a Muslim will be confused with some words in the Injil without having a Hebrew explanation. What is more, the Greek speaking world of his day.
All the best
-
Salaam.
The world of Christianity believes that Jesus Christ of the Bible declared "Love thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy strength. Love thy neighbor as thyself" as the Greatest Commandment encompassing all other Commandments.
So when we make a covenant with God according to the above Commandment, we dedicate our whole self to Him. When we have given our all to Him, nothing of us remains for anything other than Him.
Well, I think, that is exactly what people of every religion including Islam purportedly believe in.
It is only when it comes to real life situations, people begin to dither, and to seek subterfuges for their waywardness.
"...Whoever holds firmly to God, will be shown the right way." (3:101)
"Verily, those who say Our Lord is God, then remain consistently steadfast, upon them angels descend, (indicating): Neither fear, nor grieve, but receive the glad tidings of the Garden you have been promised." (41:30)
Firm resolve, is what has been lacking, all along:
"We had already, beforehand, taken a covenant of Adam, but he forgot: and We found on his part, no firm resolve." (20:115)
Humbly,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
The world of Christianity believes that Jesus Christ of the Bible declared "Love thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy strength. Love thy neighbor as thyself" as the Greatest Commandment encompassing all other Commandments.
So when we make a covenant with God according to the above Commandment, we dedicate our whole self to Him. When we have given our all to Him, nothing of us remains for anything other than Him.
Humbly,
A. Ismail Sait.
Yes, that is also correct. The whole response from Isa is:
"And one of the experts in the law came and heard them disputing together, and recognizing that he had answered them well,
asked him, “What commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”" Mark 12:28-30
Regards
Daniel
-
Salaam.
Brother Daniel,
Thank you so much for the correction and clarification.
I just copied and pasted [Mark 12:28-30] on the search engine and clicked. And I was overwhelmed with an avalanche of results similar to the one you posted.
Thanks again.
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Bro Danial, If you don't mind I will tell you the universal fact that Taurat & Injeel are corrupted due to various reasons as these Books are not existing in the languages they were revealed. Secondly the rulers were also responsible for corruption. As such no other Book if God is in original form except The Quran. Thanks
-
Salaam.
Very sorry for the delay in replying.
You said:
It would be good for Islam to have a careful study of the Quran specifically concerning Isa, as well as the Surah Matthew in the Injil, and develop a “Tauhid based Christology” so that there is freedom to consume the teachings of Isa.
As far as Qur'anists are concerned, they believe that whatever is in the Qur'an regarding Jesus if sufficient for a complete understanding of the person of Jesus.
Now you see, the Christian scholars are better placed to understand and interpret Sura Mathew in the Injil.
Qur'an is open to all. So the Christian scholars are better placed to develop Thouheed based Christology.
If you have any links regarding it, we are anxious to view them.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
Very sorry for the delay in replying.
You said:
It would be good for Islam to have a careful study of the Quran specifically concerning Isa, as well as the Surah Matthew in the Injil, and develop a “Tauhid based Christology” so that there is freedom to consume the teachings of Isa.
As far as Qur'anists are concerned, they believe that whatever is in the Qur'an regarding Jesus if sufficient for a complete understanding of the person of Jesus.
Now you see, the Christian scholars are better placed to understand and interpret Sura Mathew in the Injil.
Qur'an is open to all. So the Christian scholars are better placed to develop Thouheed based Christology.
If you have any links regarding it, we are anxious to view them.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
Sorry, just getting back to the forum. I have a differing view that "Christian scholars are better placed to develop a Christology." Was Isa a Muslim or Christian? Did Isa live in the era of Gentile Christianity, or the era pre-Christianity? Was Isa Semitic or Non-Semitic? Did Isa follow "Syariah" or "free from the law". The Gospel of Matthew is clearly a book in a Semitic, "Syariah-abiding" world.
"whatever is in the Qur'an regarding Jesus if sufficient for a complete understanding of the person of Jesus." I would say, Islam has rarely studied Jesus in the Qur'an seriously, and secondly, the Qur'an is not the complete revelation of Jesus. That is why Islam has 4 Holy Books..
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Salaam.
"That is why Islam has 4 Holy Books.." ...Please clarify.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Hi,
Simply responding to your statement "As far as Qur'anists are concerned, they believe that whatever is in the Qur'an regarding Jesus if sufficient for a complete understanding of the person of Jesus."....
I would say that the reason for having 4 Holy Books in Islam (Torah, Zabur, Injil, Qur'an) is that they each represent revelation for a different period. In regards to Jesus, the Injil provides a more complete understanding concerning Jesus. IN regards to Muhammad and the 7th century, the Qur'an gives the most complete message. I would say that the Qur'an does not give a more complete message on the person of Jesus than the Injil.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Salaam.
In Al Qur'an, Jesus has been mentioned in the following Verses:
2:87, 2:136, 2:253, 3:45, 3:52, 3:55, 3:59, 3:84, 4:157, 4:163, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17(in two places), 5:46, 5:72(in two places),
5:75, 5:78, 5:110, 5:112, 5:114, 5:116, 6:85, 9:30, 9:31, 23:50, 33:7, 42, 13, 43:57, 43:63, 57:27, 61:6, and 61:14.
Since you must have already studied Injeel, you will be able to throw light on the notable differences regarding the description of Jesus in Qur'an and Injeel.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
With due apology to Jews & Christians as already explained by me that Taurat & Injeel are corrupted due to various reasons. Therefore we have believe whatever revealed in Holy Quran. Secondly Allah need not give all detailed life of Jesus as it has to deal with other important issues.
-
Salaam.
Sardar Miyan, please prove with the help of Al Qur'an your statement: "Taurat & Injeel are corrupted due to various reasons."
Also, give your opinion regarding the multifarious, so called translations and commentaries of Al Qur'an, that mix it up with the thoughts and affinities of their writers?
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
In Al Qur'an, Jesus has been mentioned in the following Verses:
2:87, 2:136, 2:253, 3:45, 3:52, 3:55, 3:59, 3:84, 4:157, 4:163, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17(in two places), 5:46, 5:72(in two places),
5:75, 5:78, 5:110, 5:112, 5:114, 5:116, 6:85, 9:30, 9:31, 23:50, 33:7, 42, 13, 43:57, 43:63, 57:27, 61:6, and 61:14.
Since you must have already studied Injeel, you will be able to throw light on the notable differences regarding the description of Jesus in Qur'an and Injeel.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
Hello Ismail. In regards to the notable differences, I think it is easiest in putting this into 3-4 different categories......
a) Where there is additional information in the Qur'an not present yet not contradicting the standard New Testament / Injil. These are primarily relating to teaching that may be of more prominence in the Eastern Church, such as Jesus as a child.
b) Verses in the Qur'an that seem to indicate Jesus being only human and not divine. (eg. QS 5:75).. (See point below re this)
c) Verses in the Qur'an that seem to indicate Jesus being divine, and has traditionally been difficult for Islam to interpret. (eg. QS 3:45 / 4:171).. (See point below re this)
d) A verse in the Qur'an that seems to indicate Jesus was NOT crucified (QS 4:171) and others that do (QS 3:55)
In bring clarity to the above, it is important to understand that the Qur'an addresses real historical issues of the 6th / 7th century AD. The central issue during the life of the Prophet Muhammad was the division of the East and West church over the nature of Jesus. The difference was:
For the West (Roman Empire) , the human and divine nature of Jesus were inseparable. His humanity was divine.
For the East (ie. The Middle East and beyond), the human nature of Jesus was NOT divine, and the 2 natures were 2 separate entities. In other words, God spoke THROUGH Jesus, and the Word was IN Jesus. A way to explain this difference is if a glass represented the human nature, and water represented the Divine nature. Gods Word to mankind was incarnated in Jesus. (QS 3.45)
All of this comes back to the danger of a different culture and language (Greek Speaking world) in interpreting the scriptures of a very different language and culture. The Eastern Christology I believe is consistent with the Bible and the monotheism of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is a response to a number of issues where the Church had departed of from the Bible message of the Hawariyuun.
-
With due apology to Jews & Christians as already explained by me that Taurat & Injeel are corrupted due to various reasons. Therefore we have believe whatever revealed in Holy Quran. Secondly Allah need not give all detailed life of Jesus as it has to deal with other important issues.
I believe the Muslim academic world is becoming increasingly aware that the view of the textual corruption of the Torah and Injil was not the view of classical Islam, or the Qur'an itself. Al-Razi (865 – 925) “How could there be any alteration in the Book whose words' sharpness has reached a great level of circulation in the East and in the West? … For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.”
This is not deny mistranslation to support post-Bible trinitarian dogma, or serious misinterpretation, or that particular parts of the New testament (in particular those by Paul) were written for the Greek speaking world relating to issues of their legitimacy before the God of Abraham despite non-circumcision.
Views of textual corruption basically evolved because of conflict between Islam and the Roman Empire 1000 years ago.... It is time for a serious re-look at how Islam views the Holy Books and how Christianity views the prophet Muhammad.
-
Salaam.
"d) A verse in the Qur'an that seems to indicate Jesus was NOT crucified (QS 4:171) and others that do (QS 3:55)"
But Qur'an says categorically that Jesus was not crucified (4:157).
In (3:55), there is no indication at all that Jesus was crucified.
There is a very interesting point to be noted in (3:55):
".....and I will make those who follow you, (O Jesus,) superior to those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection....."
It is a point to ponder, most seriously.
If you possess, or can find in a public library, or in a friend's possession, the original volume of Abdulla Yusuf Aly's translation and commentary (not the corrupted publication by the government of SA), please read his notes on the above verse. A really noteworthy portion has been left out in SA's publication.
The only point Qur'an wants to stress even in narrating the notable points in the life of Jesus is that the God of Jesus is the only one worthy of worship.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Hello Ismail,
I will look into what you mentioned about Yusuf Ali. On Yusuf Ali, here is a free book link on Isa in the AQ, interacting with Yusuf Ali, including a section on the crucifixion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102913537 (Isa in the Qur'an)
Re 4:157 and apparent denial of the crucifixion, I believe the Eastern view of life and death was quite different to that of the west. It is clear that the Arab church in the Middle east was thrown out of Christianity prior to the prophet Muhammad because of their views on 2 distinct natures of Jesus, ie. God speaking through Christ. This affects the way the Injil and AQ are presented. The Hebrew mind is "The beheaded Hawariyuun are not really dead, but functioning in a different capacity." In the Qur'an prior to 4:157 it states "Don’t say that those killed in Allah’s* path are dead, but alive, though you don’t realize it." (QS 2:154). The question is, does 2:154 apply to Jesus, or didn't he qualify?
The historical evidence for the crucifixion is so overwhelming, to have tens of thousands of people in the era of Jesus, as well as secular historians, recognise the crucifixion makes it almost impossible to question. Whats more, the Hawariyuun who are honored in the Qur'an as faithful Muslims all recognise the crucifixion of Jesus, as does the Hebrew Gospel which was likely the first recording of the Gospel (which is the basis for the Gospel according to Matthew), carried through to Mecca with Waraqa. In my mind denial of the crucifixion causes so much internal problem within the Qur'an as well as external evidence.
However I will still follow up on the source you mentioned,
Regards
Daniel
-
Salaam.
In the Qur'an prior to 4:157 it states "Don’t say that those killed in Allah’s* path are dead, but alive, though you don’t realize it." (QS 2:154). The question is, does 2:154 apply to Jesus, or didn't he qualify?
It does not ask us not to say that they were killed. They were killed, for all practical purposes. But, as in the temporal realm, doctors - purportedly the really knowledgeable - sometimes declare those who are seemingly killed by disease, or any other cause, alive, even so in the spiritual realm, about those considered dead by ordinary folk because they are witness to them having been killed, the Creator Himself declares the truth that those killed in the path of God as alive.
That Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, is the truth.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Jesus was talking often about the father in heaven ,interesting is the form in arabic if you wright AB in a horizontal way it has the form of a cross.So symbolic he wa gone to his creator. Allahu alem
-
Salaam.
Why go so far?
If I stand and stretch both my hands sideways, it is like a cross.
Do such things count, when we are dealing with matters that count?
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
Why go so far?
If I stand and stretch both my hands sideways, it is like a cross.
Do such things count, when we are dealing with matters that count?
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
Salam,
The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition.Literally we will not find an Agreement so i tried this way .And also the Quran is telling us that the meaning of some verses arent meant word to word.
-
Salaam.
The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition.Literally we will not find an Agreement so i tried this way .And also the Quran is telling us that the meaning of some verses arent meant word to word.
As I have mentioned in the past, I begin with a starting point of a unity of message of the Qur'an and the Bible. Re the crucifixion, either the Qur'an and the Bible are in unity with each other, or either the Bible or the Qur'an was in error at the time of the 7th century. The theory of the corruption of the Bible post Prophet Muhammad is quite difficult to maintain. "For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.Al-Razi (865 – 925) ”
Surely Gods written Word is on a higher level than my ability to interpret a single verse. For the sake of interpretation of a single verse, an entire pillar of faith of Islam, belief in the Holy Books, is invalid. Interpretation is fragile, often influenced by wars and tensions. The way Christianity interprets what they think the Qur'an says is due to Rome being a political enemy of Arabia. Whatever the interpretation of the crucifixion, we begin with the understanding that the Holy Books are inspired.
-
Salaam.
The question is not about the original Book or Books.
Controversies regarding Holy Books are all from the angle of translations and interpretations.
"The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition"
We have the original Qur'an with us. What about the Bible?
"And also the Qur'an is telling us that the meaning of some verses arent meant word to word."
The words: "meaning of some verses aren't meant word for word", or similar words, are those employed in the translations, and subsequent interpretations of verse 3:7.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
The question is not about the original Book or Books.
Controversies regarding Holy Books are all from the angle of translations and interpretations.
"The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition"
We have the original Qur'an with us. What about the Bible?
The words: "meaning of some verses aren't meant word for word", or similar words, are those employed in the translations, and subsequent interpretations of verse 3:7.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
I believe according to the Qur'an and the instructions given within, the Qur'an did not state that the Bible was error. It repeatedly instructed its readers to not go beyond its boundaries, it encouraged People of the Book to believe in its message (QS 4:47), instructed People of the Book to not depart from the Torah and the Injil; (QS 5:68).... So... that is what I endeavor to do. To discredit the legitmiacy of Holy Books and to what would seem to deviate from plain instruction from the Qur'an so to accommodate a different interpretation on the crucifixion is dangerous. With that, the who foundation of Gods revealed written word is on shaky ground, as we question it because it doesn't fit with our interpretation.
I went through a number of years of struggle as I left an orthodox trinitarian position to one of Tauhid, I could only do this by placing the truth of the Holy Books above my own interpretations.
-
Salaam.
The Historians were, likely, wrong.
"The Wrights were right; but Whitehead was ahead":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2327286/The-Wright-Brothers-NOT-fly-plane--German-pilot-beat-years-earlier-flying-car-claims-leading-aviation-journal.html
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Salaam.
"Gospels don't say Jesus was crucified":
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Greetings brother Ismail.
Yes indeed. Beyonce was crucified instead, according to this:
!http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/166209/beyonce_gets_crucified_after_posing
Also the Americans have not really landed on the moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
The internet is like the book that " You can find anything you want in it"
Take your pick, why bother to check? It says it on the internet.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Sorry brother , here is the link about Beyonce again.
It might work this time:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/166209/beyonce_gets_crucified_after_posing
-
Salaam good logic and all - I think there is a bigger point here generally and not just to do with the Internet. A lot of us look for information that proves our view on a certain thing. It is called 'confirmation bias'. I suppose we all do it to some extent !? :-\
"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Sometimes it does not even matter that people use the views of other people that they would normally completely disagree with. For eg - I even have a link of the well known critic of Islam who can be very rude at times !!! - Sam Shamoun - who even made use of br. Joseph's article to prove his own beliefs from the BIble to show others - 'look what some Muslims believe what the Qur'an teaches!!???" He knows very well that this is not a 'usual' Muslim position (although well argued by br. Joseph) but he still used it. One certainly for my archives!!!!! Saba 8) :)
https://www.facebook.com/SamShamoun/posts/715796125104007
-
Greetings Saba.
Thank you for your post.
I agree , some people have only one rule:
Rule #1, I am always right. Rule 2, if you think I am wrong, read rule #1
And of course the Internet confirms that rule for them.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Salaam.
Thank God for the Internet. It presents different views, for us to evaluate.
As is clear from the above posts, nobody believes anything just because it is in the Internet.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Greetings Ismail.
Yes you are right.
There is good and bad. www. everything available.. is no coincidence!
"We will show them our sign..." For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Salaam.
I am unable, for the time being, open the link you provided, because, at the moment, adobe flash player is refusing to get installed in my computer.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Greetings Ismail.
I was just giving an example that showed it contained both good and bad information.
Thank you brother.
Peace.
-
Salaam.
The Historians were, likely, wrong.
"Gospels don't say Jesus was crucified":
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
Thanks for your response Ismail. Declaring the Islamic thinkers of the classical Islamic era in era, so to continue the interpretation of one verse, 4:157, is a big call!!
50% of the Gospel of John, and a large portion of the other Gospel accounts is explaining step by step the death of Jesus. They explain the execution, the Roman Guard verifying the death, the guarding of the tomb etc.. Believing an obscure pastor in Switzerland having a theory in 2013 can't beat the secular historians of Jesus’ day, plus no-one in the first few centuries ever coming up with the idea that Jesus did not die by execution, except that a Christian sect called Docetists believed that Jesus was only a Divine Spirit and not human, and in that case he did not die a human death. Docetists are the ultimate reverse of Islam, declaring Jesus had no humanity.
The amazing thing is that the denial of the death of Christ can only deny the Injil, that is, one of the Holy Books of Islam. It aligns Islam with a Christian sect in denying the death of Christ, and views such as this and other conspiracy theories discredits Islam itself in my view.
An Islam which believes in the Holy Books and believes in a unified message of the Holy Books has so much potential in being “a corrective” to the catholic dogma of the creeds in history. I believe that denial of the death of Jesus (as well as corruption of the Bible) has more to do with a reaction to past wrongs of Christianity than the truth of Islam. Islam will really move forward when Islam has leaders like Nelson Mandela who doesn’t hold on to or reacts by the wrongs of the past..
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Salaam.
I think they criticize the Versions only, and not the Original Injeel.
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Daniel, I wonder what country are you from. Are you from Indonesia?
Salam
-
My religious identity is Catholic, and throughout they years I realize that I have always been believing in God as one and indivisible. Recently I have been reading and studying about Islam and Quran, and weirdly, I can align my view of Jesus that has been backed by my Gospels background to the view of Jesus presented in Quran.
I also believe that the Gospels are not corrupted, the Gospels do not teach trinity. Rather, the Gospels, which have jewish-semitic background, was read throughout the centuries by the gentiles with no semitic/jewish understanding
. And in order to create a national religion, the Catholic church (West Church, as Daniel pointed out), interpretations are forced into the Gospel and slowly, pagans nuance permeates the religion. It was then realized by the Protestant Reformation that the Catholic church is 'clouded with saints' and corrupted. But then again, with no anchor to who Jesus really is (a Jewish, a submitter to God, abiding the Torah Law), Protestants also branched to various denominations.
I, too, believe that Jesus was crucified and raised and then ascended to heaven.
So many times, Muslim ends up describing Jesus about who he is not rather than who he really is according to the verses in Quran.
My favorite article so far about who is Jesus in Islamic perspective: http://islamfrominside.com/Pages/Articles/Jesus%20-%20An%20Islamic%20Perspective.html
-
Hi Marealta,
Great to hear from you, and to to have a fellow journey-er who really isn't clinging on to defending their religious identity. (-: One of the biggest things for me is to create the 7th century Arabian Church context.... a church that was divided and influenced over centuries of accumulating dogma, saint worship and paganism, with Christians not having the scriptures in their language (only Syriac not Arabic).... with Arab Jews translating Targums and selling them as scripture.....With all of this as background then understand that Muhammad, despite not understanding the language of scripture, receiving revelation and it being a "Corrective" for Christians and Jews.
So in some ways the Qur'an is sometimes repeating beliefs that are not true and correcting them. However you are SO CORRECT, Islam so often spends its time expressing the negatives of who Jesus is not. The sooner that Islam consumes the words of Jesus in particuarly the Gospel of Matthew, and lives them, it will revolutionize Islam. The problem is, that the very name of Jesus has become so attached to Western Christianity that his words are unknown. Yet in reality, he was a "Sharia abiding", fasting, "Islamic praying", "revealing the character of God" prophet, who is more linked culturally and theologically to Islam.
Loved the article link!!! BTW, I travel around quite a lot, but often in India.
-
Dear Marealta Salam please read Joseph Islams article "Is second coming of Prophet Jesus is supported by Quran" you will know that Prophet Jesus was give death but not raised up to Heavan. No human being is kept in Heavan before the Day of Judgement. You will be enlightened if you read this article on Quransmessage web site Thanks
-
Salaam,
Is the Gospel of Mathew available online?
Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.
-
Dear Sardar,
As-salam alaykum
Dear Marealta Salam please read Joseph Islams article "Is second coming of Prophet Jesus is supported by Quran" you will know that Prophet Jesus was give death but not raised up to Heavan. No human being is kept in Heavan before the Day of Judgement. You will be enlightened if you read this article on Quransmessage web site Thanks
Thank you for sharing the article's reference. This is appreciated. As you will know the context of my article in the main is to tackle the Muslim belief that Jesus did not die. That is its main purpose.
I am sure you will agree with me, that I share many overlaps of perspectives with Daniel and now marealta with regards their views. I think there is a need for continuing debate on such matters, not only in scholarship, but more importantly, amongst Muslims.
Please can I kindly share a short post with you.
Lambasting the Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=146.msg370#msg370
Thank you once again.
Regards,
Joseph
-
Thanks Bro JAI for presenting good logic from Quran about Taurat & Injil while many of Muslims believe that both Taurat & Injil are corrupted. I remember to have read somewhere Quran says that these books are not in original form. Can you please tell me about this? thanks
-
Greetigs all.
I hope I am not going off topic here.Apologies if so
Here is another theory by Lisa spray to add to your collection:
The account of Jesus' death in the Quran is startling. It states: "they never killed Jesus; they never crucified him; they were only made to think that they did." : They claimed that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of God. In fact, they never killed him; they never crucified him; they were only made to think that they did. Indeed, those who speculate about him are full of doubt about their own accounts; they are never sure. They only conjecture. What is absolutely certain is: they never killed him. Instead, God raised him to Him. God is Almighty, Most Wise. [Quran 4:157-158]
Undoubtedly, this Quranic narration represents a new and profound account of the death of Jesus. It is bound to shock most people, so some explanation is in order.
The Quran consistently talks about the `real person,' i.e., the soul, when talking about anyone. The Quran differentiates between two human entities: a temporary entity, the body, and an eternal entity which is `the person.' The temporary entity is considered a shell or a garment worn by the lasting entity. The Quran does not regard this temporary shell as `the person.' The importance of the body, or the person's outer shell, is in serving the real person by effecting sufficient growth and development of the soul in preparation for the real, eternal life (of the Hereafter). If we look upon one's body as a wild horse, one attains the required growth and development by taming and controlling the whims of this horse. At the end of one's predetermined interim in this life, one sheds the shell and moves on towards the eternal Hereafter; the body's role ends.
Thus, when the Quran states that "they never crucified Jesus; they never killed him," the word "him" here refers to the real Jesus, not his body.
The body may be present somewhere, but the person may or may not be present with it. People who are familiar with `out-of-body experiences' know that the body is nothing more than a garment or a physical vehicle for the soul. In out-of-body experiences, the intellect remains with the person, not with the body. Those who practice out-of-body (or astral projection) experiments often describe the body as just laying there like an inanimate object.
The Quran explains clearly that Jesus, the real person, was `raised to God' prior to any torture or crucifixion. Those who believed that they were torturing or crucifying Jesus were in fact dealing with Jesus' body, an empty shell devoid of feelings and knowledge.
Being `raised to God' indicates another important fact-that the righteous go directly to heaven, and do not wait for the Day of Resurrection to attain Paradise:
THE RIGHTEOUS DO NOT DIE;
When their lives on this earth come to the predetermined end, the angel of death simply invites them to leave their earthly bodies and move on to Heaven, the same Paradise where Adam and Eve once lived. Heaven has been in existence since Adam and Eve. We learn from 89:27-30 that God invites the believers' souls: "Enter My Paradise." The above quote is from an article written by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, the discoverer of the Quran's mathematical code (SUBMITTERS PERSPECTIVE, Masjid Tucson, Feb., 1990). He continues: As far as people on earth are concerned, the righteous "die." People do not realize that the righteous simply leave their bodies, and move on to Paradise....The righteous go to Paradise, while their friends and relatives are still living on earth. Like going to Hawaii and waiting for us there. He cites several verses which are well worth examining: Give good news to those who believe and work righteousness that they will have gardens with flowing streams. When provided with provisions of fruits therein, they will say, "This is what was given to us in the past." They will be given similar provisions, and they will have pure spouses therein. They abide therein
forever. [Quran 2:25]
The indication in this verse is that the righteous are in a place similar to gardens of the Hereafter, with similar provisions. This would certainly be the case if they had been waiting in the Garden of Eden (also called Paradise), until the Day of Resurrection. Coupled with the following verses, that is the clear conclusion:
Do not think that those who are killed in the cause of God are dead; they are alive at their Lord, being provided for. [Quran 3:169]
Do not say about those who are killed in the cause of God, "They are dead." For they are alive, but you do not perceive. [Quran 2:154]
(At the time of his death) he was told, "Enter Paradise." He said, "I wish my people (on earth) knew that my Lord has forgiven me and honored me." [Quran 36:26-27]
In the case of Jesus, all these mathematically coded verses show that God raised the real person, Jesus' soul, leaving his body for the torturers and crucifiers. Thus, they never tortured Jesus. They never crucified him. He was gone long before any torture or crucifixion of his body:
They plotted and schemed, but so did God; God is the best schemer. Thus, God said, "O Jesus, I am putting you to death; raising you to Me, and ridding you of the disbelievers. I will make those who follow you high above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is the ultimate destiny of all of you. Then I will judge among you concerning your disputes." [Quran 3:54-55]
It is astonishing to find this phenomenon, the separation of the real person from the still living body, indicated in the New Testament, and even more specifically stated in some apocryphal literature. There is an especially straightforward reference to this phenomenon reported by James Brashler in THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY (Harper & Row, 1977).
The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of ancient documents unearthed at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. They are described as containing "the sacred scriptures of the Gnostic movement that emerged and rapidly grew in the cradle of civilization at the time of Jesus and early Christianity. Its codices are a priceless periscope into the tumultuous world of ideas brewing during one of civilization's great turning points."
James Brashler describes a vision seen by the apostle Peter, in his introduction to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (Ibid., p. 339):
The first visionary scene, is depicting the hostile priests and people about to kill Jesus (72,4-9)....The second scene (81,3-14) describes Peter's vision of the crucifixion of Jesus. The accompanying interpretation by Jesus makes a distinction between the external physical form and the living Jesus; the latter stands nearby laughing at his ignorant persecutors. A clear distinction is thus made in this ancient literature, very close to the time of Jesus, between "the external physical form," i.e., the body of Jesus, and "the living Jesus." According to this narration, the real person of Jesus was unphased by the torturers and persecutors of his soulless body.
Looking at the translation of the Apocalypse of Peter itself (Ibid., p. 344), we find the startling vision of Peter:
When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said, "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing, on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is the fleshy part." [Apocalypse of Peter, VII, 3, 81]
A careful examination of the Gospels of Mark and Luke reveals that Jesus was in fact gone prior to crucifixion. He did not respond to the surrounding chaos. This confirms the apocryphal account reported in the Nag Hammadi Library, and agrees with the mathematically authenticated account of the Quran:
The chief priests, meanwhile, brought many accusations against Jesus. Pilate interrogated him again: "Surely you have some answer? See how many accusations they are leveling against you." But greatly to Pilate's surprise, Jesus made no further response. [Mark 15:3-5]
Herod was extremely pleased to see Jesus. From the reports about him he had wanted to see him, and he was hoping to see him work some miracle. He questioned Jesus at considerable length, but Jesus made no answer. The chief priests and scribes were at hand to accuse him vehemently. Herod and his guards then treated him with contempt and insult.... [Luke 23:8-11]
Putting all these accounts together, this possible picture emerges:
1. The human being consists of two main distinct entities:
a. the body, which serves as a mere shell or garment, and
b. the soul, which is the real person.
2. In accordance with a predetermined plan, the time came for Jesus to complete his mission as God's messenger to the Children of Israel and as the Messiah. This coincided with the scheme of Jesus' adversaries to crucify him. Just before executing their plot, God's plan was implemented, and Jesus the real person was summoned or "raised to God."
3. Jesus' body was left for his persecutors to torture and crucify; they were dealing with an empty shell devoid of all feelings or understanding.
4. Thus, the Quran's mathematically coded statements that "they never killed Jesus, they never crucified him; they were led to believe that they did," are accurate and proven facts.
MODERN DEMONSTRATION
Rashad Khalifa draws an interesting parallel between what he understands to be the case in Jesus' death, and that of a modern patient who underwent an historical surgical procedure. (See Khalifa's QURAN THE FINAL TESTAMENT, Ibid. Appendix 22, p. 667)
On November 25, 1984, William J. Schroeder, from Jasper, Indiana, received an artificial heart at Humana Heart Institute International of Louisville, Kentucky. The NEW YORK TIMES of Monday, November 26, 1984 published the following news item:
SURGEONS IMPLANT MECHANICAL PUMP TO REPLACE HEARTLOUISVILLE, KY, Nov 25 -- A 17-member surgical team today removed the diseased heart of a 52-year old man and replaced it with a plastic and metal pump....Dr. Devries leaned over Mr. Schroeder and said, "Everything went well, perfectly." On Wednesday, December 12, 1984, the 18th day after receiving the artificial heart, Mr. Schroeder was so normal and so alert that when President Reagan talked with him he complained about a delay in sending his Social Security disability check. On the nineteenth day, December 13, 1984, the world was told that Mr. Schroeder "suffered a stroke." What really happened was that Mr. Schroeder, the real person, departed. William J. Schroeder died. His body, the empty shell, continued to function through artificial means. The artificial heart continued to pump, and all other life processes of Mr. Schroeder's body continued to work. Significantly, from that moment on, he never recognized the date, the day or time. The WASHINGTON POST of Friday, December 14, 1984 published the following news:
LOUISVILLE, Dec. 13---William J. Schroeder, who became the world's second recipient of an artificial heart 18 days ago, tonight suffered a stroke in his hospital bed as he ate dinner with his wife, doctors reported.... (Dr. A. M.) Lansing replied, "unequivocally, no," when asked if the stroke could have been a result of Schroeder's many activities recently. These included a telephone conversation with President Reagan Wednesday and fast government action earlier today to deliver a Social Security disability check that he had told Reagan was overdue.
At Humana Hospital - Audubon, where the implant took place, Lansing said Schroeder was talking to his wife when "she noticed suddenly he stopped feeding himself and was just holding his food in his right hand." He appeared "drowsy, his eyes rolled back, and he became somewhat limp," Lansing said. The stroke was not "life threatening," Lansing said. Shortly afterward, Schroeder was somewhat "stuporous" and "not talking intelligently," Lansing said.
In retrospect, it is obvious that William J. Schroeder actually left his body on the nineteenth day (December 13, 1984) after receiving the artificial heart on November 25, 1984. Schroeder was raised to God about 600 days-19 months-before his body finally ceased to function.
According to the Quran, this is precisely what happened to Jesus: he was raised to God before the crucifixion of his empty body:
They claimed that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of God. In fact, they never killed him; they never crucified him; they were led to believe that they did.... For sure, they never killed him. Instead, God raised him to Him. God is Almighty, Most Wise. [Quran 4:157-158]
Draw your own conclusion! as per 17:36.
GOD bless .
Peace to all.
-
Dear Goodlogic Salam, you seem to be Submitters who follow RK. For us his Code 19 is a clear decit. He says so many things which are not in Quran. Where is written that all who die below the age 40 will go to Heavan !!! Please do not quote his translations here. He has abruptly removed two Ayaat of Quran committing Blasphamy.
-
Greeings Sardar.
Thank you for your post.
May I clarify that I only follow the scriptures, including Qoran.
God directly informs us, all humans, that He has taught us and equipped us to distinguish things (55:4), and He commands us to use our brains, eyesight and hearing to study, reflect, analyse, and judge for ourselves (17:36, 2:148) . He directly asks all humans to read Qoran from cover to cover (73:4), study it (47:24), meditate with it (17:79), and increase their knowledge (20:114). He praises the thinkers and the knowledgeable (29:49, 3:191), and He links reflecting and examining resources to seek knowledge with the right faith (3:18), wisdom, good vision, good logic, and intelligence (39:18, 38:20, 38:45, 2:269, 13:19). He commands all humans, not just an exclusive group, to follow Qoran (7:3, 6:155), proclaim Qoran (3:187), and to remind with Qoran (6:70, 50:45).
Additionally, God declares that the message in Qoran is for all the people (81:27, 38:87) and Qoran is the only source of religious guidance (18:27). He also states that He made Qoran easy to learn (54:17, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40). He emphasizes that it is made of straightforward teachings except for some allegories that our salvation doesn't rely on (3:7). He proclaims it to be in perfect Arabic tongue without any ambiguity or contradictions (39:28, 4:82). He thus proclaims Himself as both Author and Teacher of Qoran (10:37, 55:1-2). He also narrates examples and displays scenes from the past and the future to teach us that no soul is responsible for another (53:38), and we are equally accountable for our own deeds (64:7) as we return to Him individually, not in the company of our explainers or idols (6:94). With all of these commands, teachings, and descriptions, why would any sane mind consider a third party besides God to learn Qoran when God's words are revealed and taught in black and white by Him?
The best advice is seek the best explanation of the verses of Qoran? From the only explainer!
" It is God who will explain it".Why should I follow anyone else?
I am simply a " Believer".in What the scripture confirms for me.
With respect and friendship.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Thanks Bro JAI for presenting good logic from Quran about Taurat & Injil while many of Muslims believe that both Taurat & Injil are corrupted. I remember to have read somewhere Quran says that these books are not in original form. Can you please tell me about this? thanks
Dear brother Sardar,
As-salam alaykum
Please consider, how can the Quran assert that these books were wholesale corrupted at the time of the Prophet when the Quran is instructing the People of the Book to go back to their books for judgement? Was the Quran referring them back to corrupt Books? Please think about this dear brother.
005.043
"But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them? therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not People of Faith."
005.068
"Say: "O People of the Book! you have no ground to stand upon unless you firmly stand by (Arabic: Tuqimu) the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that comes to you from thy Lord, that increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But do not grieve over disbelieving people"
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph
-
Thank you Br Joseph. In response to "Good Logic", I think we can summarize 3 Islamic different interpretations of 4:157 that synchronize this verse with the belief of the death of Christ in the Biblical and historical record.
a) 4:157 is speaking of a Spiritual reality: What Good Logic mentioned, in relation to 2:154, the body died, but the spiritual reality is that Jesus is not dead. According to scripture, some of the last words spoken by Jesus, "My God, why have you forsaken me", (Matt 27:46) and then the spirit left him." This would be somewhat according to the Church of the East (who opposed the catholic Chalcedon creed that the Physical nature of Jesus was divine), this being one of the prominent churches in the Middle East,
b) 4:157 is speaking of Christ not being a criminal: The crucifix represents the punishment of a murderer; God did not allow him to die a decayed death where the birds ate away the body, but his body was allowed to be removed by a discple called Joseph and cared for (Matt 27:59), wrapped in clean cloth and buried. This would represent something like what Br. Joseph presented below.
c) 4:157 is confronting the boast of the Jews that THEY killed him. Ultimately the laying down of Jesus life was not the decision of Jews, Jesus submitted to Gods will for his life to be laid down for the sake of others "Not my will but yours be done." After 135AD, the Jews detested the Hebrew followers of Jesus because the followers of Jesus would not support their attempted overthrow of the Roman empire in Jerusalem. This resulted in the Tauhid followers of Jesus and Jews becoming separate entities, and fleeing to Arabia away from Roman rule.
All 3 of the interpretations above basically synchronize with the Biblical record (although they do not necessarily synchronize with orthodox Christian interpretation) , but does not need a dogmatic interpretation, with any 3 of the above possibly being acceptable biblically. Also we need to remember that the physical symbol of the cross (a small "t"), was a post Bible development as a symbol of Gentile Christianity.
-
Halo Daniel,
Yes. As a person who was brought up Catholic and did not have any knowledge about Islam and Quran, I had been trying to let go of my ignorance and try to learn the Quran and the historical background of Prophet Muhammad ministry on earth.
It is clear that the Quran was revealed for mankind, but the first main target of Quran to establish Islam is the immediate surrounding of Muhammad. So, yes, if one want to deeply understand how Islam related to the Jews and Christian in 6th century Arabian, one must put it in context; how was the nature of the Jews and Christian at that time, in that place. Which I think we both agree, that the Christian in Muhammad surrounding was not Western Church Christian, but rather 'Easterners' and 'Heretical'.
The thing is, probably, Islam and Christianity has separated so widely, that they seem to be two conflicting forces nowadays. Jesus followers have been conditioned that Islam hates Jesus and misrepresenting Jesus, etc. Islam society has also been conditioned to think that Bible is highly corrupted and that Christian are crazy for worshiping three gods, which of course, in Trinity point of view, it's not like that. What should happen is communication that excludes all those negatives preconception, and we should humbly seek the agreements and understandings from all the revealed words from God, which of course as confirmed by the Quran: Torah, Psalms, and Gospels.
It's nice to know you Daniel, let's pray the best for our nation and mankind.
Salam
-
Yes, BTW, what country are you from?
-
Dear Joseph and Sardar Miyan and Good Logic,
Yes, I believe the Quran clearly stated that People of the Book did not necessarily have to convert to Islam during Prophet Muhammad ministry. If they:
1. Believe in God
2. Believe in the Hereafter
3. Accept the books and the law that they have, in their hands, at that time
4. Do good deeds and not causing mischief in the Islam ministry.
Secondary sources tell a story of how a Jewish couple were found to be doing adultery, and when they were brought to Prophet, the Prophet asked people to find the law of Rajam in the Torah. I think it means that at that time, people did have the books. And New Testament also has been canonized in 4th century; but the Church was in dispute over theological matters (interpretation of Jesus, the 'heretical' were persecuted and expelled from the Western Church).
As for the account of Jesus in the Quran, I believe that Quran is just giving the light and correcting interpretations that people drew from the Gospels. So, the Gospels do tell about Jesus, but to understand the Gospels correctly, one must read it with Quranic point of view. But as how a Quranic scholar have to have knowledge in classical arabic, a Biblical scholar must also have knowledge in Greek and Aramaic.
Unfortunately, the original copies of the Gospels with its original language is not easily available for everyone. I am happy that Quran has been well preserved in its original language and is widespread all over the world, as I learn that so many meaning and intention got lost in translations.
God bless us all :)
-
Yes, BTW, what country are you from?
Saya dari Indonesia. Salam! :)
-
Are Muslim from Indonesia ? thanks for sharing
-
Are Muslim from Indonesia ? thanks for sharing
Can you rephrase your question? I don't really understand. :)
Salam
-
I have a question I have been thinking about..
What is Al-Masih in Islam point of view? What did the Messiah really did? Why is Isa called Al-Masih? Is it because all the prophets are anointed? I guess sin atonement is not supported in Quran.
-
Never mind, I have found a thread discussing exactly that question.
-
Ah yes, was just going to say....
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1105.msg4542#msg4542
This is one of the overlooked areas in Islam.....
Daniel
-
Greetings marealta.
I find that in some areas Qoran agrees/confirms what the bible says about Jesus the Messiah.For example;
Jesus himself refused to be called son of God on a number of occasions. In the following verse he rebukes the ones who called him son of God, preferring the title of 'Messiah':
"And devils came out of many, crying out and saying, 'You are the son of God!' And he, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that he was the Messiah" #14 (Luke 4:41).
The refusal of Jesus to be called the son of God, and choosing instead the title of 'son of man' also occurred during the trial at the Sanhedrian. When he was asked if he claimed to be the son of God he replied:
"So you say. But I tell you this: from now you shall see the son of man seated at the right hand of God" #15 (Mathew 26:64)
On numerous occasions Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet:
"A prophet is not without honour except in his home town and his own house" #16 (Mathew 13:57) (Mark 6:4) and (Luke 4:24)
We also read:
"I must journey today, tomorrow and the day following for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem" #17 (Luke 13:33)
"This is the prophet Jesus" #18 (Mathew 21:11)
Jesus also spoke of himself as the messenger of God:
"Whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes God's messenger because he is God's messenger will share in his reward." #19 (Mathew 10:40)
"No messenger is greater than the one who sent him" #20 (John 13:16)
That is exactly what Qoran portrays Jesus as:
[Quran, 5:75] The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!
[Quran, 5:116] (On The Day Of Resurrection) God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary,** did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside God?’ " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.
'Atonement' & 'Original sin'
The concepts of 'Atonement' and 'Original Sin' are equally precarious and not without inconsistencies. To claim that Jesus suffered and was crucified to atone for our sin is philosophically wrong. Not only does this conviction render little sense to the merits of punishment and reward, but more dangerously, such belief could be regarded as a license to disregard righteousness as long as one believes in Jesus!
The Atonement doctrine contradicts the Old and New Testaments:
Old Testament:
"Also to you O Lord, belong mercy; for you render to each one according to his work." #87 (Psalms 62:12)
"And will he not render to each man according to his deeds?" #88 (Proverbs 24:12)
"The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." #89 (Ezekiel 18:20)
New Testament:
"Each of us shall give an account of himself to God." #90 (Romans 14:12)
"Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labour." #91 (1 Corinthians 3:8)
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
Salaam Daniel,
I have a question about what Christians believe about Paul. My friend who is a Christian, said Paul was Jewish and wrote many lies about Jesus, and most of his writings where boasting about himself. She said Paul was the one who planned for Jesus to get killed. (I believe It was God who put him to death and raised him, they just had a body)
she than said Paul became blind some time after Jesus departure, than Jesus appeared before him and killed him.
I am just curious about this Paul.
Salaam
-
Jesus himself refused to be called son of God on a number of occasions. In the following verse he rebukes the ones who called him son of God, preferring the title of 'Messiah':
On numerous occasions Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet:
"A prophet is not without honour except in his home town and his own house" #16 (Mathew 13:57) (Mark 6:4) and (Luke 4:24)
Jesus also spoke of himself as the messenger of God:
'Atonement' & 'Original sin'
The Atonement doctrine contradicts the Old and New Testaments:
Old Testament:
"Also to you O Lord, belong mercy; for you render to each one according to his work." #87 (Psalms 62:12)
"And will he not render to each man according to his deeds?" #88 (Proverbs 24:12)
"The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." #89 (Ezekiel 18:20)
New Testament:
"Each of us shall give an account of himself to God." #90 (Romans 14:12)
"Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labour." #91 (1 Corinthians 3:8)
GOD bless you.
Peace.
Hello Good Logic,
I thought I would briefly respond to the couple of points you made. In regards to the son of God, I believe there was no problem with this phrase at the time of Jesus in that it did not contradict complete monotheism. Son of God and Messiah were interchangeable, indicating God's representative on earth. In some ways the equivalent could be "Caliphate", although that is more of a political word. It was used throughout history for "The religion of Abraham." Jesus avoided both Messiah and son of God in public, not because it indicated deity, but that it implied kingship, and would have had all sorts of political issues with Roman forces.
The issue is the change of meaning with "son of God" from 2nd century until 6th century. By the time of Prophet Muhammad, the meaning of the word had changed to mean deity, and therefore was rejected. As far as I know, many open-,minded Muslim scholars would agree with the above.
Re atonement, this is a topic for another day possibly. However a couple of verses above need to be read in context, of not judging your brother, especially when much of the New Testament world lives in a context of atonement. The Hebrew sacrifice system had been practiced and commanded for over 1000 years, of which Idul Adha is a remembrance. Two things were about to happen in the 1st century...... a) a massive inclusion of those considered God's people throughout the nations b) The 3 essentials with the sacrifice system, a priest, sacrifice and temple were about to cease to exist with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. There needed to be a better, simpler way (ie. Hebrews in the N.T.). Again, disentangling traditions from what "atonement" was intended to mean for the "Hawariyuun". Anyway, that is a topic for another day......
-
Salaam Daniel,
I have a question about what Christians believe about Paul. My friend who is a Christian, said Paul was Jewish and wrote many lies about Jesus, and most of his writings where boasting about himself. She said Paul was the one who planned for Jesus to get killed. (I believe It was God who put him to death and raised him, they just had a body) .She than said Paul became blind some time after Jesus departure, than Jesus appeared before him and killed him. I am just curious about this Paul.
Salaam
Wow. It sounds like a Christian who has thrown out their Holy Books! As the Prophet Muhammad is greatest misunderstood figure for Christians, so Paul is the most misunderstood figure for Muslims. All the above would be the opposite of Paul. The 2 most important things to remember according to the Bible is: Paul was not a Trinitarian, he embraced the "Shahadah" / Shema... there is no god but God (1 Cor 8:4). The community of faith in Jerusalem misunderstood him in believing that he was asking the people under Gods law to leave Gods law, and the believers tried to kill him. However with the Hawariyuun, he took a vow to declare he had never done such a thing (ACTS 21). It was only for non-Jews that Pauls message was for them that they were not required circumcision based upon the decision of the Hawariyuun. The core root of the issue was the jealousy of the Jews that non-circumcised were considered a part of the "Ummah".
The view of Paul you presented would be very difficult to be supported by the Prophet Muhammad, in fact I would think you would have to say it contradicted Muhammad, considering the Qur'ans inclusiveness of the Gentiles, and recognizing the "People of the Book."
HOWEVER: Even the hawariyuun said that Paul's writings are easily misinterpreted (1 Peter). (If not understanding context). He also was not perfect, as he aggressively fulfilled his calling of bringing Gods message to the Roman Empire. As far as boasting, Paul was the opposite..... "All of my achievements I count as rubbish, I in myself can do nothing." (Galatians)
Hope this helps...
Wasalam...
-
Dear Daniel and Good Logic,
Thank you for the list of Quran verses that support the view of Jesus as Messiah. Although I am still learning around on what did actually Jesus do as a Messiah, both according to NT and Quran. The Jews at that time were waiting (and I believe they are still waiting now) for a political, a king, a messiah that will lead them against the oppressor, the Roman Empire at that time.
My faith at this point is that, Jesus did not give the Jews a power revolution, but instead he indicated that the kingdom he is bringing is not a political kingdom against the Roman Empire, but the Kingdom of God on earth.
As for atonement and original sin, I am also wondering what verses and point of view supported this doctrine. I partly disbelieve it, but I am still wanting to gain understanding to fully accept that it is wrong. A friend of mine told me that the atonement Jesus did was for the Jewish only, not for everybody after that era. But, I haven't read much about it. It would be good to read a discussion about it.
For the "son of God" title, I agree fully with Daniel. At the time of Old Testament and New Testament, the terms "son of God" and "Holy Spirit" were not corrupted theologically. The Jews use those kind of terms. "Sons of God" "Children of God" "son of David" "Israel is the bride of God (Marriage is used to describe the relationship between God and Israel" etc.
The Holy Spirit (ruach ha-kodesh) was not a separated entity of God, not an entity at all. Ruach hakodesh "...refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts" [Encyclopedia Judaica]
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen 1:2
But after the Gentiles took over Christianity, the Semitic backgrounds of those terms were disregarded, and they injected weird theology that fits their paganistic thinking: "hypostasis" "oussia" etc. And I believe the Quran came to clarify the mistakes that the Gentiles made.
- - - - -
Paul is Jewish, non-Trinitarian, and misunderstood. It is to be taken in context that he was writing letters to various gentile cities, informing the teaching of Jesus. He called Jesus as 'Lord'. But Paul is human, so he is not in any way infallible. His words, I believe, is inspired by his faith, but it is not the word of God.
Around this point Christianity was a Jewish sect. The early Christians visited the synagogue, pray three times a day, fast two days a week: they were Jewish.
There was a war in 70 CE, but it didn't separate Christians from Judaism.
Up until the year 132-135 CE, a false messiah conducted a revolt against the Romans, his name was Bar Kochba. The followers of Jesus who were Jewish, did not want to accept Bar Kochba as a messiah and there was a conflict. Ultimately, the Romans overcame the revolt, and the Jews today consider Bar Kochba as a failed messiah.
"Cochba [bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." - p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988
.
The complete schism/separation of Christianity from Judaism happened after that.
Correct me if I got it wrong,
Peace for all :)
-
Salaam
It is not my view, It is my friends who is Christian, who told me all about the Gospals and how Paul's writtings were questionable. I am a Palestinian and my whole life was a Muslim. So Did I ever open a Bible and read? No, I had the Qumran. I only knew the basics about what each religion believed.
I just started to hear about Paul from many of my Christian friends. I was curious if everyone who follows the Bible that was non Jewish viewed him the same. I saw you commented about Paul and Infill and wanted to see your view.
I only heard of the blindless and Jesus Killing him (which I can not even comprehend that ever happened based on my beliefs in the Qumran)
My intention was never to mock or speak badly of a man I never knew, I just wanted to hear your view. Sorry if you took it differently.
Salaam
-
Dear Abbsrayray,
I did not think that you are mocking anything or anyone. We are all sharing questions and views here. :)
Salaam
-
Greetings friends.
Please allow me to clarify " The son of GOD" issue:
(The following verse is God talking to David about Solomon)" I will be His Father and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. (Chronicles 17:13)
And:
Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which can not be measured or counted. In the place where it is said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living G-d. (Hosea 1:10)
The kings of Israel are referred to as sons of God because they are to be His representatives, ruling in his place on earth over His people.
"I said, You are Elokim; you are all sons of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6 )
Jesus only said a phrase that was commonly said by Jews in his days, and Jesus did not claim to have a monopoly on son-ship with God. We are all God's children, Jesus is not the only one and never claimed to be the Begotten one.
GD bless.
Peace to all.
-
Dear all,
Allow me to quote more...
The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”
Psalms 82:5-7
gods=sons of the Most High=kings=rulers=vicegerents
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.
But now my kingdom is from another place.”
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth.
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate.
John 18:33-38
What is Truth?
Salaam
-
Dear Daniel and Good Logic,
Around this point Christianity was a Jewish sect. The early Christians visited the synagogue, pray three times a day, fast two days a week: they were Jewish.
There was a war in 70 CE, but it didn't separate Christians from Judaism.
Up until the year 132-135 CE, a false messiah conducted a revolt against the Romans, his name was Bar Kochba. The followers of Jesus who were Jewish, did not want to accept Bar Kochba as a messiah and there was a conflict. Ultimately, the Romans overcame the revolt, and the Jews today consider Bar Kochba as a failed messiah.
"Cochba [bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." - p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988
.
The complete schism/separation of Christianity from Judaism happened after that.
Correct me if I got it wrong,
Peace for all :)
Hello all, Great to interact with you all! Just on the above, we need to be careful we are not confusing 3-4 different groups... The Tauhid community who followed the Hawariyuun labelled the Nazarenes, and were expelled from Jerusalem in 135AD, were never known as Christians. (From the historian Epiphanus). The Christians, accepted by the Hawariyuun, didn't associate much with the Nazarenes because the CHristians saw them as heretical, following basically a Halal diet and the law. The Hebrew followers of Jesus numbered in the 10's of thousands. Their journey is important, because they are basically the links from Mecca back to Jerusalem. . When expelled from Jerusalem, the Nazarenes were disowned by their Hebrew brothers. This is also important, because the Nazarenes became a separate entity from the Jews, and had communities in and around Mecca, with a Nazarene leader, Waraqa, officiating the wedding of before Muhammad. (According to Islamic historians Qutaybah, Al-Yaqubi and others). It is very clear that the heritage of Islam is from the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, which is from the Qur'an. "Nazarene" was a label, therefore "Islam" was natural to be adopted by this community.
Outside of the Nazarenes, was the Christian church centred in Rome. They have their early history grounded in the teaching of Jesus, accepted by the Hawariyuun in about 45AD, pioneered partly by Paul. However it is increasingly acknowledged that their history after its beginnings is not exactly reality. The Hawariyuun history has been sidelined, so that Peter transfers authority to the Gentile Christian Popes as head of the "Umaah". This is clearly untrue, with the family of Jesus in Jerusalem, starting with James and then Simeon, being the true leaders. All of this is important, as Muslims have not been told their heritage. A lot of details are unknown with historical records being destroyed, however roughly the above is the Muslim heritage.
Just briefly, one large other groups, which are actually multiple streams, are in between the 2 groups above of the Hawariyuun and Christians... that is the Christian church of the East. This is the primary church Muhammad had contact with, their history is from the direct ministry of the Hawariyuun (not Paul) to the scattered Helenised (Greek speaking) circumcised. As Christians, they sholat, and have a very similar culture to Muslims. They were thrown out of the Catholic Church 150 years before Muhammad because their belief in Jesus was actually similar to the Quran, that the spirit of God was in Jesus as a separate entity to the human Jesus. The Church in the East thrived for 500 years in the Middle East and were the key to the Golden Age of the Arab world.
This is long......but I think it is important for Muslims and Christians to know their heritage. There is a lot of academic study in these areas these days, including this is a part of my study.
Wasalam.. Daniel
-
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your explanation and I apologize to all for my ignorance and lack of information regarding this issue. I just remembered and realized that Quran address Christian as Nasara/Nasrani. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this issue.
Was the East Church you mentioned, the same Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodoxy) in our time today? Or was it a different church? I don't know much about the early church history.
To be honest, I personally believe that the separated divine 'entity' is the Word, "Be!" through which the universe was created.
"The similitude of Jesus is that of Adam."
Salam...
-
Dear Daniel,
Is it possible to contact you out of this forum?
Thank you
Salam
-
Shalom / peace marealta and daniel .. pls don't deprive readers such as me of things we may learn from your conversations by speaking in private about topics like this. One thing I like about forums is the sharing bit. >>
-
Hello Duster,
I agree with your remark. As for email, I was about to ask some stuffs regarding our country, I don't know if that would be appropriate to be laid out here. But yes, general discussions however should be discussed in open.
To Daniel,
How do you reconcile the church doctrine about Isa and his death in the light of Quran? I have been thinking about a verse in Quran: Isa similitude is of Adam. That verse to me bears a deeper meaning than just being created by miracle (Isa and Adam). And I have stumbled on a theory, the Adam Christology, proposing that Isa is the last Adam, his resurrection was the first to be done, and it is done so that we can be resurrected after him. Does this view have any place in the continuation of Torah?
I also found an opinion that the NT, the gospels, should actually be put under the Torah (just like Talmud, etc), not as substitute.
Thank you
-
To Daniel,
How do you reconcile the church doctrine about Isa and his death in the light of Quran? I have been thinking about a verse in Quran: Isa similitude is of Adam. That verse to me bears a deeper meaning than just being created by miracle (Isa and Adam). And I have stumbled on a theory, the Adam Christology, proposing that Isa is the last Adam, his resurrection was the first to be done, and it is done so that we can be resurrected after him. Does this view have any place in the continuation of Torah?
I also found an opinion that the NT, the gospels, should actually be put under the Torah (just like Talmud, etc), not as substitute.
Thank you
I think firstly to begin with the actual crucifixion of Jesus I have presented 3 interpretations of the Qur'an to synchronise with the Bible I think it was p5 of this topic. Also I believe the Qur'an views the Bible as reliable, but issues with the twisting of meaning.
When we come to the application and meaning of the Injil universally, meaning what does it supposed to mean for a Muslim as a part of their pillar of faith, that is where we need to "go slow" and put emotions aside. A couple of key starting points are:
- There is only ONE truth, ONE "Ummah" / people of God. The words "Old Testament / New Testament" are not inspired words, but support the mindset of "Replacement Theology", that the Christian church has replace Hebrew; that the NT replaces the OT etc. etc. This is the same midset that Islam with its post Qur'an traditions often has of itself. That Islam is the final and true religion replacing the old, the Qur'an replaces the Injil etc. In this aspect, Islam is not different to Catholic replacement theology.
The truth of what Paul presents is of the "New" (Gentiles) being grafted into the "old" (Hebrew). The message of the Injil from Jesus is to the Jews "Do not hope that you are a part of the "Ummah" simply because you are ethnically descended from Abraham." The Injil, including from Paul, is all about ONE. One Ummah, Semitic and non-semitic.
- In regards to the meaning of the crucifixion, I think we need to understand that the Injil is about the 2 types of people in the Injil, those following the Torah (Hebrews), and those not (Gentiles). The Torah is 613 instructions for living, for the Roman Empire Gentiles it was summarised simply as "Love your neighbour". Paul wrote his inspired writings to Gentiles. Despite what Muslims have heard of his writings, 95% of it they would embrace as great truth. However his "articulating" of the one true message was for the Gentile mind. (ie. He himself said in 1 Cor 9 this was his principle... all things to all men.)
It is clear that the heritage of Islam is from the Jerusalem "Ummah". You can synchronize the message of Muhammad with that of Jesus brother, James, who was the head of the Jerusalem believers. "Faith without works is dead." As far as synchronizing the Qur'an to the Jesus of the Bible, the more important question is to which people? ..... those of Jerusalem or those of Rome? As Jesus was to James and the "Hawariyuun" in Jerusalem, Jesus was to Muhammad. In other words, if you took away all the writings of Paul to Roman Empire Gentiles, what does the Jesus you are left with look like? This is the challenge for Islam.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
It is clear that the heritage of Islam is from the Jerusalem "Ummah". You can synchronize the message of Muhammad with that of Jesus brother, James, who was the head of the Jerusalem believers. "Faith without works is dead." As far as synchronizing the Qur'an to the Jesus of the Bible, the more important question is to which people? ..... those of Jerusalem or those of Rome? As Jesus was to James and the "Hawariyuun" in Jerusalem, Jesus was to Muhammad. In other words, if you took away all the writings of Paul to Roman Empire Gentiles, what does the Jesus you are left with look like? This is the challenge for Islam.
Jesus who was born as a miracle, healed people, forgiving sins, preached against the tradition of men practiced by the Jews, reforming the wrongs in society, his sermon in the mount, his saying that he didn't came to abolish the law, knowing that he will be killed but still submitting to the will of God, got crucified, resurrected after three days...telling his disciples to preach to the 'nations', baptizing people in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... being called 'Lord', 'Son of God', and.. Messiah.
-
Jesus who was born as a miracle, healed people, forgiving sins, preached against the tradition of men practiced by the Jews, reforming the wrongs in society, his sermon in the mount, his saying that he didn't came to abolish the law, knowing that he will be killed but still submitting to the will of God, got crucified, resurrected after three days...telling his disciples to preach to the 'nations', baptizing people in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... being called 'Lord', 'Son of God', and.. Messiah.
Hi, Ah yes... but as you know....
a) "son of God" was hardly ever used and meant something totally different in the Hebrew world 500 years before Muhammad....It was referencing to God's agent and representative .... and Adam and many others were referred to as this...In fact more generic still, you are referred to as the son of God (ie. His agent of goodness)...That is simply the way Hebrew language was used, different to Muhammad's time (Rom 9:26)..
b) "Lord".... In the Bible "Lord" (Kurios) does not represent deity, but a level of authority. All sorts of people are referred to as lord (kurios). If each time it is translated as deity consistently, the Bible would not make sense.
c) Baptised in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit..... One by one.... i) son.. we have discussed above.... ii) Father..... The Hebrews refused to verbalise the word God (Yahweh) because of a tradition of fear of using His Name inappropriately. Therefore they used various alternatives.... (which is where Allah comes from the singular of Elohim).. Jesus used term "Father", as to indicate God presence close to mankind. iii) Holy Spirit... So to avoid misunderstanding, Holy spirit was used when God revealed his power / presence.
d) Baptism in these 3 names..... Firstly Jesus said he never baptised (John 4:2), and there is no case in the whole Bible of any disciple baptizing in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit; nor is it heard of. There is no other such instruction in the entire Bible except for the last words of Matthew. In early church history, this sentence is missing in earliest manuscripts, as well as there is not trace of it in the Hebrew Bible. The gospel according to Mark (the earliest Greek Gospel account) has no such instruction..This is one of those verses which has a very strong basis for viewing as an addition to suit later tradition.
The baptism of jesus and the Hawariyuun was explained by Muhammad in Surah 2:138. The culture of the Hebrews was not for another to baptize, but for self-baptism. ( If you have watched the Jesus Film, he baptized himself) And so this was the background to the following Surah in the Qur’an....2 different translations to emphasize a point:
Receive the baptism (Arabic: Sibgha) of God, and who is better than God in baptising? and Him do we serve.
We take our colour from God, and who is better than God at colouring. We are His worshippers. (QS 2:138)
In the culture of exclusiveness, the distinctive at the birth of islam (submission) is the “Sibgha of God”. Sibgha means "dye" or "colour". The Arab Christians at the time of Muhammad used to mix a dye or colour in the baptizing water to signify that the baptized person got a new colour in life. For Muslims, Baptism was the direct work of God Himself. Islam is being immersed into the character from God, reflecting his character.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Thank you for sharing the verse 2:138. I did not know of this. I found an explanation in the web saying.
'Of what use is this formal baptism? What really is worth doing is to adopt the colour of God, and it is not water that gives one this colour but actual service and devotion to God.'
But what about John/Yahya, didn't he baptize?
So, for you Jesus is a mere prophet, or did he some person more exalted? This messiah, what did he really do?
-
But what about John/Yahya, didn't he baptize?
So, for you Jesus is a mere prophet, or did he some person more exalted? This messiah, what did he really do?
Yes.Baptism was a Hebrew ritual that Yahya carried out for those who wanted to repent... The Bible says repeatedly "John baptized you with water, Jesus baptized with the spirit ."... ie.. Follow Jesus (his teachings), and you will know and sense God's presence close to you....
Re your question about is Jesus a mere prophet.. From the Qur'an Q.S. 3:45 The angels said, “Mariam, Allah* gives you good news of a word from him, whose name will be the Messiah, Isa son of Mariam, [he will be] highly exalted in this world and the next, and brought near [to Allah*]. or from the Injil Acts 2:46.. God has made this Jesus "lord" (Kurios).
However remember, God fulfilled his purposes THROUGH Jesus. The original belief of the East was the the Spirit dwelt IN the human Jesus, like Yahweh dwelt in the tabernacle. This I believe explains why there seems to be contrasting statements in the Qur'an concerning Jesus....There is the human Jesus, and God's spirit.. Muhammad's call was to the Eastern theology.
You asked the Messiah, what did he do? He revealed God's character for us to follow in all aspects of life. Sometimes a couple of my Muslim friends feel like this is trying to excessively elevate Jesus. However that is because Jesus has been ingrained in them that Jesus is a western Christian figure. One day Jesus might return to be "muslim" (-:
-
Okay, I have been reading some new things...
The Church of East, held a Nestorian belief, that human Jesus is separated from the spirit of God, the Logos, the Word... Right?
It challenged the title given to Mary by the west church, Theotokos (Mother of God), rather calling her Christotokos (Mother of Christ).
That Christ is fully human, the Quran agrees.
Yet..
3:45 O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.
19:21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
4:171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
5:75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.
19:30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet."
The Quran doesn't seem to 'oppose' the Nestorian view. I sort of get it.
It reminds me also to the tangled web of Trinity: if Jesus is God, we were created by Jesus.
The Bible never stated that Jesus created the universe. But God created through His Word. I came across a non-Trinitarian site, though I still don't understand what is the web owner view about who is Jesus and his nature, he made many interesting points. If anyone wants, I can give the link later. These quote of an article, contrasting KJV translation with what the actual Greek texts actually mean.
1. John 1:3
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (KJV).
The same was in the beginning with God. All things came to exist through (dia) the same and without the same not one thing came to exist that exists.
2. 1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we of him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through (dia) whom are all things, and we through (dia) him.
3. Ephesians
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. (KJV)
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things through (dia) Jesus Christ. (some manuscripts also do not contain the phrase "through Jesus Christ" at all).
4. Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.(KJV).
For in (en) him all things were created, things in heaven and upon earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and unto1 (eis) him. And he is before all things, and in (en) him all things subsist.
5. Hebrews 1:2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (KJV)
God, who in many places and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers in (en) the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us in (en) a Son, whom he set heir of all things, through (dia) whom also he made the ages.
---
One more though, are you saying that Jesus opened the grace and faith to God of Israel to the gentiles, and Muhammad provided the revelation of the law? Or that Muhammad was appointed to correct and to give gentile law?
For Jesus made some of the unlawful to be lawful (the gentiles were deemed unclean to be around with by the Jews)
3:50 (I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Thank you for your insights! Do you have anymore to share about this issue?
-
Sorry, double posting.
-
Hello,
Watch this, as I learned so much from it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sZx3--rL4
-
Dear Abbsrayray,
My home internet is no good for video streaming, so I will bookmarked it for the time when I get better connection like wifi. Thank you for your sharing :)
-
Hello,
Watch this, as I learned so much from it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sZx3--rL4
Thanks for your post and link Abbsrayray. I will need some time to get through it. But the title is a bit strange isn't it? Is the Bible or the Quran the word of God? This is question does not make sense in Islam? All are a part of the pillars of faith, Torah Zabur INjil, Qur'an. To say is the Torah/Zabur. INjil or the Qur'an the word of God implies Islam contradicts itself. Debating with people who have a paradigm based upon tradition not truth is not really a debate in my view. There are some scholarly articles on this;
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/trinity%20FM3.htm as well as many others..
Wasalam
-
Salaam Daniel,
Can you please explain to me Christian Tauhid. I looked it up and read stuff, I am either ignorant to understand what the beliefs are or simply lost. I ask because I have never heard of it until I joined this site. You write differently on Christian Tauhid than what I read. You call Jesus Nabi Issa, they say on the website I looked at He is God, but do not believe in the trinity.
I actually love learning about others religion in general, that is why I ask..
As per the video, No, It is a Gary Miller Video. Indeed, Yes without doubt, The Torah, Psalms, Gospels and Quran are Holy scriptures from God. I am a Muslims, that is part of being on id, believing those are from God without Question.
I watched it last night, I learned stuff from both sides.
Like I never knew Jesus fasted a month at a time or prayed like Muslims today did, I did not know all that was in the bible..
I am obsessed to learn more about Jesus and extremely fascinated by how he was... such an inspirational man...
Salaam
-
Hello marealta,
Thanks for all your posts. It would be good not getting in a too depth discussion on verses in the Bible, remembering that this is an Islamic site dealing with the Quran. (-: The verses you quoted are written to cultures that worshipped many deities in the 1st century.... For Muslims that is obviously not going to make a lot of sense. Those verses are also at "The top of the list" of difficult to interpret, which was acknowledged by the disciples of Jesus even. Also there are issues of mistranlastions into English.... For a Tauhid Bible and commentary on the whole of the New Testament, I got a copy years ago from http://www.truthortradition.com/ , I can't see it on there now, I could E Mail it to you.
Salam
Daniel
-
Hello Daniel,
I have sent you an email. Did you get it? As for the bible verses, yes, it probably should not be discussed much here. But there is a section for bible in this forum, probably I should post it there?
Now I can see the relation, there are verses in the Quran about Isa that seem to 'contradict' each other in western church point view. I was in other discussion room days ago, a conversation happened like this:
X: Jesus is called the word of God and the spirit of God in the Quran.
Y: You know in the John gospel the argument used for the 'divinity' of Isa is the one about the word of God.
X: Hmm, I don't know about that...
God bless us all.
-
Salaam all,
Marealta and Daniel, I would strongly encourage and welcome you to post your discussion in the Bible section of this forum..it will be insightful to read your comments and thoughts. I am sure the forum members will benefit a great deal from it.
Hello Daniel,I have sent you an email. Did you get it? As for the bible verses, yes, it probably should not be discussed much here. But there is a section for bible in this forum, probably I should post it there?
-
Hello Daniel,
I have sent you an email. Did you get it? As for the bible verses, yes, it probably should not be discussed much here. But there is a section for bible in this forum, probably I should post it there?
God bless us all.
Hi, Yes, just specific to Bible interpretation we shift to the other forum. Otherwise continue here.
Daniel
-
Salaam Daniel,
Can you please explain to me Christian Tauhid. I looked it up and read stuff, I am either ignorant to understand what the beliefs are or simply lost. I ask because I have never heard of it until I joined this site. You write differently on Christian Tauhid than what I read. You call Jesus Nabi Issa, they say on the website I looked at He is God, but do not believe in the trinity.
I actually love learning about others religion in general, that is why I ask..
Salaam
Hello Abbsrayray
Actually the term "Christian" is not that important. Historically Christians have their faith passed on from the same source as Muslims recognise, the "Hawariyuun". The Christian faith is rooted in the confession "There is no god but God" the same as Islam. This was the belief of the Hebrew prophets, considered to be central.
Both Christianity and Islam originally were not new religions, they were simply the continuation of one Ummah that believes the Shema / Shahadat. Christians were originally a part of the Ummah of islam.
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/term%20muslim%20hijacked%20FM3.htm
The calling of Muhammad was to call all of Christianity back the the "Shema", as well as call tribal Arabia to the same confession.
There are 2 types of Christian Tauhid, ones who have broken away from orthodox Christianity and considered a sect. And ones that stay in orthodox Christianity and teach Christians from within in a careful way that can be understood. I recommend the 2nd way. Orthodox Christianity are those who submit to the creeds which became law in the 4th and 5th century.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Hello Daniel,
The Tauhid Christian ones who have broken away from orthodox Christianity and considered a sect, are they namely the unitarian or jehovah witness? Do these sects have different view of what it actually means by messiah?
Anyway, shaking the old traditions in churches is a very hard thing to do. Especially because religion has one of its feet settled deep in politics and economy. I am thinking about the Vatican, of course..
I am only starting to read the interesting pdf I received about Christology. Thank you for the share.
Peace out
-
Hi marealta,
Good to hear you got the Tauhid Bible and commentary OK. Re the groups you mentioned, I don't support sectarianism, which creates a new separate legal entity and declares that they hold to truth. That is contrary to the Qur'an and the Injil. The New Testament strongly discourages the transfer between religious identities for all peoples (1 Cor 7) , yet encourages renewal of the mind from former paradigms (Rom 12). It is clear that Islam was originally NOT A NEW SECT OR RELIGION, but the transformation of belief (Rom 12). Specifically concerning Unitarian or Jehovah Witnesses, they have certain aspects which have common ground with Islam, especially the Unitarians. However Unitarian can either be a generic term which could even describe true Islam, or an organisation. Either way I dislike the label. In summary, "Breaking away" and creating a separate entity is un-quranic and unbiblical.
Someone described "Orthodoxy" as "The strongest heresy" (-: . Meaning it has nothing to do with truth, but simply describes what the majority follow, often as the result of political lobby and military power. "Orthodox" Christian views are the result of who was in the right place at the right time in regards to Roman power during the Church Councils, "orthodox" Muslim views are often the result of conflict with the church and the response to that in becoming Arab-centric.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Bro Daniel Please elaborate your vieiw about Orthodox Muslim. There is no orthodoxy in Islam as the teachings of Quran are Uniserval & even today the Quran is the uptodate got solution to all matters
-
Bro Daniel Please elaborate your vieiw about Orthodox Muslim. There is no orthodoxy in Islam as the teachings of Quran are Uniserval & even today the Quran is the uptodate got solution to all matters
An "orthodox" Muslim view is simply those believing what most Muslims think is true. In other words, if most Muslims believe that they Hadith is divinely inspired, then that is the orthodox view within Islam. In fact, from what I understand www.quransmessage.com challenges hundreds of orthodox views of Muslims with non-orthodox views. (ie. the articles on this site are those views held by a minority of Muslims).
Renewal, reform and progress occurs when orthodoxy is challenged.
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Orthodox Muslims are not those who believe in Ahadiths but deviant from right path of Islam.A muslim is one who believes in Quran & leads his life as per teachings of Quran as Quran is Muffasil ( Detailed).No Hadith is needed to practice Islam.Regarding Prophet Jesus , he was as human as other prophets like Abraham,Ismail,Yaqoob and Musa. Allah is Unique and does not need a son to be His prophet.Prophet Jesus was neither crucified nor it was needed for his ummah to get salvation.
-
Thanks Sardar for your post. I believe my understanding on some of the points you mentioned can be found throughout this discussion,
Wasalam
Daniel
-
Orthodox Muslims are not those who believe in Ahadiths but deviant from right path of Islam.A muslim is one who believes in Quran & leads his life as per teachings of Quran as Quran is Muffasil ( Detailed).No Hadith is needed to practice Islam.Regarding Prophet Jesus , he was as human as other prophets like Abraham,Ismail,Yaqoob and Musa. Allah is Unique and does not need a son to be His prophet.Prophet Jesus was neither crucified nor it was needed for his ummah to get salvation.
Dear Brother Sardar:
Salamun Alaikum.
Let's be very careful when we "define" a certain term. If you carefully study Qur'an you'll see that the term "Muslim" applies to anyone who has surrendered to the will of Allah / One true GOD. Believing in Qur'an is not a "required" attribute for being a Muslim.
In this connection the following article by brother Joseph is quite insightful.
Muslim and Mu'min (Believer) - The Difference
http://quransmessage.com/articles/muslim%20mumin%20FM3.htm (http://quransmessage.com/articles/muslim%20mumin%20FM3.htm)
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
Arman
-
Bro Armanaziz, You are utterly mistaken & posted wrong comments as I never defined word Muslim but was answering a question of Bro Dainel that there is no orthodxy in Islam but some muslims may believe in Hadith but the true muslims dont believe in Ahadith Further I told him that all the prophets were Human as such prophet Jesus was also a human. Allah need no son to be His prophet.Thats all.
-
Salam Bro Armanaziz. Aziz is the Allah's name therefore this should be used as Abdul Aziz and not use without prefixing with Abdul.Do you realize this? Thanks
-
Dear Brother Sardar:
Salamun Alaikum.
I am really sorry I misunderstood your posting. The term "A muslim is one who..." sounded like you are trying to define the term. If that was not the intension - please accept my apologies. But it doesn't harm to be a bit more careful about our word choices so that the readers do not misunderstand.
Regarding the term "Aziz", please check Al Qur'an 9:128 - you'll see the term has been used to describe the messenger of Allah. I do not believe there is anything wrong in my name. What our community is suffering is also grievous to me. Thanks for your concern though.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
Arman
-
Aziz is one of the Allah's attributes ( Ninety Nine names), therefore there is priority of being His name. Allah called his messenger as Raheem & Kareem but Allah's Attributes are foremost important. You can treat your name as of not Allah's name which is your option.