Gnostic Jesus in Quran?

[jimkhong]

drac

It is good to note that there is some diversity of opinions within Islam and reason is used to illuminate scriptures. This continues a long history in Islam in this regard, though the majority of Muslims today (and I am so sad to say, including the educated ones I encounter) accepts the ‘truth’ as is told to them without subjecting it to critical evaluation. Hence, it is sometimes difficult for me to distinguish between what is legend and what is truth in Islam.

The point of the contrast between the miracles of Isa and of Mohammad is that there was a quote from a hadith (I think) which stated that the Quran was Mohammad’s greatest miracle. Not trying to do a one-up-manship here - just pointing out a reasoning that if there is such a hadith, it could be refuted.

I do not need for Jesus to prove his authenticity and his closeness to God by his miracles, more so a miracle recorded by a Gnostic gospel. For me, the authencity of Jesus is proven by his words and we can apply human reasoning to them to know that they are truth by which humans are to live by. And here is where we diverge substantially on our understanding.

We believe that God reveals himself to men, who are then inspired to write the Bible. They write within the context of their times and they write as men. While the message of what they write is preserved from error, the factual presentation of what they write is dependent of the conventions of their day. I do not believe that God do dictation and men, with their dignity and free will as given by God, are more than a mere broadband cable.

As such, if I were to accept that Mohammad was one such man who was inspired by God (and I do, but in a more limited sense than the way Muslims believe), I would believe that he was inspired to intepret what he had witnessed and what had been made known to him, in a manner that illuminate God to the people we was preaching to. If he had arrived at the correct conclusion from information that is incomplete or unreliable (eg., Gnosticism), would that correct conclusion be made wrong? Not likely, it still remains God’s revelation. Likewise, there could be (and I believe, there were) incorrect conclusions in addition to the correct ones that he arrived at from the same source.

This is where we part company in our faith. Muslim belief is that God’s revelation is clean, unitary, literal, direct and complete. There is no deeper meaning in God’s words other than what is stated and studying the Quran is really understanding what the Arabic words mean. Revelation is delivered through messengers who are preserved from errors in all aspects in their mission. The receptable is as error-free as the contents.

We, on the other hand, see revelation as a more messy affair. (I should point out that fundamentalist Christians would have the same idea of revelation as Muslims would) God reveals himself many times (and still does) to different people in different ways with only that part of the truth that is relevant to them at that point in time being revealed. The prophets he uses to transmit his revelation are not perfect being but sometimes in their flaws, we understand the God’s message even more (Jonah and Aaron are good examples of flawed prophets who give us insights when we reflect on their stories). We go far beyond the meaning of the words to receive a never-ending stream of messages from God that will guide different people in different ways at different times of their lives.

Is one understanding of revelation better than the another? I am not sure if it is so or even whether it makes a difference. Suffice to say that there is one understand of revelation that works for me and you have another that works for you. Which is why I am Christian and you are Muslim. God reaches to the both of us in ways that in his wisdom, knows work best.

One more thing about your point that " …he must have been lying about having heard the verses of the Qur’an from God, through Gabriel". Take Mohammad’s Night Journey, Muslim scholars still debate whether the journey was a literal physical journey, or a spiritual journey, or a vision received in a dream or while awake. Are Muslims ready to make a similar debate about Mohammad’s encounters with Jibril?

By the way, on a totally unrelated point: whould you, as a Muslim, have any objection to me saying “Allah sbt” (or the English equivalent) or refer to “Mohammad saw” (or pbuh)? I ask as one, whose government prohibit me by law to call God Allah.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Very simple: the Christians who wrote that story have died out as a sect. Can’t very done very much imprinting, could it?

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

It is fallacious to suppose that an event not recorded in the canonical Gospels could not have happened on the basis that the Evangelists chose not to record it.

 

[jimkhong]

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

It is fallacious to suppose that an event not recorded in the canonical Gospels could not have happened on the basis that the Evangelists chose not to record it.

I am not saying ti didn’t happened. That would be an opinion. I am just stating a statement of fact that the Church rejected the Infancy Gospel to the Arabs as non-canonical. And since the Quran included two stories about Jesus that are not in the canonical Gospels but are found in the Gnostic gospels (It may be elsewhere as well but we have not uncovered any other written or oral traditions for those stories), it is possible (in my opinion, likely) that Mohammad’s understanding of Jesus (and by extension the Trinity) could have come, at least in part, from Gnostic Christians.

 

[drac16]

Ok, I thank you for this little dialogue we’ve had. I just have a few things left to say:

This is where we part company in our faith. Muslim belief is that God’s revelation is clean, unitary, literal, direct and complete. There is no deeper meaning in God’s words other than what is stated and studying the Quran is really understanding what the Arabic words mean. Revelation is delivered through messengers who are preserved from errors in all aspects in their mission. The receptable is as error-free as the contents…

I would contest some of that. There is more to what meets the eye of many scriptures. For example, The Qur’an gives a long narration of a famous event in history, the Battle of Badr, from surah 3:123-174 and in that same context, Allah points out spiritual lessons that can be gained from remembering/reciting it. It was a physical war, but all kinds of spiritual lessons can be gained from absorbing the nectar in that narration; there are lessons of forbearence, renouncing material gains, spending money and time in righteous causes, trusting God, trusting your brothers/sisters in faith, the Decree of God as to when someone dies and the list goes on.

I could easily formulate 3-4 sermons or lectures on those texts alone (and I’m not even a certified imam or sheikh).

There is a place for a type of scholarship that goes beyond preaching and memorizing stuff. It has existed for many many years, not the least of which was Rumi [may Allah have mercy on him], who was a sheikh/scholar and a poet. His poetry changed my life.

One more thing about your point that " …he must have been lying about having heard the verses of the Qur’an from God, through Gabriel". Take Mohammad’s Night Journey, Muslim scholars still debate whether the journey was a literal physical journey, or a spiritual journey, or a vision received in a dream or while awake. Are Muslims ready to make a similar debate about Mohammad’s encounters with Jibril?.

Yes, it’s true that there are some who believe that his Night Journey was some kind of astral projection or dream, but I don’t agree with them. Muhammad [peace be upon him] gave a full acount of what happened and there is no indication that this experience was anything other than a literal travel from Mecca to Jerusalem overnight (via a white animal from Heaven that Muhammad [peace be upon him] described as a cross between a mule and a donkey).

My guess is that the only reason why one would believe in a “metaphorical journey”, if you can call it that, is due to being afraid or embarassed. Sure, it’s weird that he claimed to travel on a flying animal, but so what? just because it’s weird or funny, that doesn’t necessarily make it false. There are all kinds of true things that are strange. Reminds me of that Bible passage where Jesus says “If you deny me before men, I’ll deny you before my Father”

There are all kinds of people throughout history who have taught garbage things, so I wouldn’t be suprised if, one day, someone comes along and teaches that Muhammad didn’t *actually hear * the Qur’an being recited to Him by Gabriel and that Muhammad didn’t literally repeat what he heard. However, I can guarentee you that that will never become the orthodox belief, because surah 53:1-18 of the Qur’an addresses this very thing; that he [Muhammad] didn’t speak of his own desire, but only what was sent down to him.

By the way, on a totally unrelated point: whould you, as a Muslim, have any objection to me saying “Allah sbt” (or the English equivalent) or refer to “Mohammad saw” (or pbuh)? I ask as one, whose government prohibit me by law to call God Allah

It doesn’t matter to me. You can do what you want.

 

[jimkhong]

There is more to what meets the eye of many scriptures. For example, The Qur’an gives a long narration of a famous event in history, the Battle of Badr, from surah 3:123-174 and in that same context, Allah points out spiritual lessons that can be gained from remembering/reciting it. It was a physical war, but all kinds of spiritual lessons can be gained from absorbing the nectar in that narration; there are lessons of forbearence, renouncing material gains, spending money and time in righteous causes, trusting God, trusting your brothers/sisters in faith, the Decree of God as to when someone dies and the list goes on.

We come from very different understanding of revelation and that is why the verses you quote would illustrate my point from my point of view (possibly not yours). The fact is that Muslims take on the exhortations on wealth, etc contained within the battle of Badr story because it is in the Quran. Whatever is in the Quran is by definition true because it is God’s literal revelation. So, the spiritual lessons from the battle of Badr story has to be followed because it is in the Quran, which is my point.

The Quran is not dependent on reasoning for it to be judged authentic. It is authentic because it is there. You just have to believe it.

The Bible, on the other hand, is different. It is a part of revelation and the Church, early in her history, had to judge its authenticity based on certain criteria. The books of the Bible are there because of a centuries-long process of discernment, usage, and weeding out by churches & congregations. Todya, it is the broad consensus of the Christian faithful that, among other criteria, it is consistent with the faith taught by Jesus to his Apostles. Which is why it appeals to and can be justified by reason informed by faith. (Now, I am not saying that the Bible is better. But the Bible is a choice for those who believe that God acts through men, and sometimes through the flaws of men, to reveal himself - in different, multiple, diverse and sometimes messy (because of the need to discern) ways. The Quran would be a choice for those who believe God’s revelation to be single, complete, straight-forward (no need to discern).)

I am not saying that there is no place for reason in Islam but reason exists to illuminate the text of the Quran and bring forth (for example) the injunction against usury in the story of the battle of Badr. For Muslims, the starting point is always obedience to God’s revelation and faith, reason & wisdom are directed to understanding God’s revelation and serving it. For instance, Muslims are called to love and forgive because these virtues are praised in the Quran.

For Christians, the starting point is faith. The Bible helps us illuminate our faith and what we are to do as Christians, but it is by no means the sole source of our revelation. God as imbued all people with free will and wisdom: we are called to discern God’s direction for us, using the Bible as a guide. By faith, we know we are suppose to love and forgive. The Bible, which the early Church has compiled for us, confirms it, shapes our understanding and guide us on how to love and forgive. We do not obediently follow everything the Bible say (and there are many - mostly in the OT but not all of the OT - we judge not to be relevant to our lives as Christians) but we discern whatever in the Bible using reason, rooted in our faith.

I hope this explains theis very fundamental difference between Christians and Muslims, among the many other fundamental differences and among even more similarities. If you find yourself having an intractable difference in a inter-religious debate, you may want to consider that it is due to this one fundamental basis of the two religions.

There is a place for a type of scholarship that goes beyond preaching and memorizing stuff. It has existed for many many years, not the least of which was Rumi [may Allah have mercy on him], who was a sheikh/scholar and a poet. His poetry changed my life.

Islamic arts is very much based on he beauty of the written word, both visually and aurally. I always find it intriguing that the beauty of the Quran (which unfortunately is lost on me with my Arabic literacy nto going far beyong alif-ba-ta) is one of the justification of its authenticity.

It doesn’t matter to me. You can do what you want.

Thanks, where I am, there are many Muslims who think I shouldn’t use certain Arabic words which are reserved for Muslims. For instance, Bismilah-ilahi & Insya-allah and at one point previously, even mubaligh and malaikat, are probihited by law. I think it is a challenge for Islam whether Muslims can reclaim its religion from political Islam, with its identity (racial and/or religious) based nationalism rather than being rooted in the teachings of God.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi Martin, I know you have an interest in knowing about Islam but, for your debate with Sam, it is important to understand one fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, among many other differences and among even many more similarities.

Christian concept of revelation is that revelation is continuous and embeded within a historical human context. God reveals himself to the Jews in the context of Jewish experience and Jesus’ teachings similarly draw on the political and social context of the Jewish world in his days. Also, revelation if only as much as is necessary for the salvation of those people it is directed to and further revelations continue on to this day as the Holy Spirit teaches modern societies and people about God.

Islamic belief, however, (If any Muslim think I am incorrect, please do not hesitate to correct me) is that revelation is one and complete. Therefore the revelation given to the messengers of God, Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammad, are all complete in their own right as they are all the same complete revelation - but of course the Jews and the Christians have misunderstood the true revelation and have instead falsified it when writing their scriptures. As such, when Jesus received the Gospel (note the singular, it is not the falsified four Gospels that we Christians have received), it was received complete. So, Jesus had the full wisdom of revelation as a babe and it did not grow in him as we Christians believed.

So, there are two very fundamental differences in the basis that underpin the different arguments that you and Sam brought up. Until you reconcile this fundamental difference, I doubt if you can even agree on what to disagree on.

Jim, Sam has no issue in believing Jesus. I think the only issue Sam has is since he is raised Muslim and not a member of the Catholic church ( I take it he is not familiar knowing the history in particular of Christianity), he has to learn more.

What I mean is it is not easy to unlearn what has been learned.

Lastly “Ignorance of scripture, is ignorance of Christ”

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Jim, Sam has no issue in believing Jesus. I think the only issue Sam has is since he is raised Muslim and not a member of the Catholic church ( I take it he is not familiar knowing the history in particular of Christianity), he has to learn more.

What I mean is it is not easy to unlearn what has been learned.

Lastly “Ignorance of scripture, is ignorance of Christ”

MJ

Well put, Martin. Sam have another thread on another subject which I think has resulted in the very same intractable difference I have mentioned.

 

[jimkhong]

hi drac

I just noticed that you are Sufi (don’t know why I didn’t see it earlier) so some of what I mentioned may not apply. I understand from other Sufis that since Sufis internalise the message of God in much the similar (if not the same) way as in Christian spiritualism, there is technically another source of God’s ‘revelation’ to supplement the Quran: God speaking to you in your heart. I should have drawn that distinction earlier, my omission.

I find it interesting that a Sufi reject the metaphorical interpretation of the Night Journey. I guess we cannot draw clear lines on what somebody believe purely from the label.

Anyway, I am always interested in how Sufis find their position in a Sunni society. Sunni muftis tend to view Sufis with suspicions and I suspect it is because of the alternative way Sufis have of understanding God, an alternative other than through the Quran. It should be a bit more open in Canada, but my experience in UK is that diaspora Muslims tend to be more reactionary, especially in Europe.

And your reply to me on my use of sbt & saw would not count as Sufis are all well predisposed to other religionists anyway.

Oh, by the way, can you point me to any written references to the 144,000 hidden prophets. Muslims I talk to speak of it but I cannot find anything of it in the Quran - is it in hadiths?

 

[drac16]

hi drac

I just noticed that you are Sufi (don’t know why I didn’t see it earlier) so some of what I mentioned may not apply. I understand from other Sufis that since Sufis internalise the message of God in much the similar (if not the same) way as in Christian spiritualism, there is technically another source of God’s ‘revelation’ to supplement the Quran: God speaking to you in your heart. I should have drawn that distinction earlier, my omission.

I find it interesting that a Sufi reject the metaphorical interpretation of the Night Journey. I guess we cannot draw clear lines on what somebody believe purely from the label.

Anyway, I am always interested in how Sufis find their position in a Sunni society. Sunni muftis tend to view Sufis with suspicions and I suspect it is because of the alternative way Sufis have of understanding God, an alternative other than through the Quran. It should be a bit more open in Canada, but my experience in UK is that diaspora Muslims tend to be more reactionary, especially in Europe.

And your reply to me on my use of sbt & saw would not count as Sufis are all well predisposed to other religionists anyway.

Oh, by the way, can you point me to any written references to the 144,000 hidden prophets. Muslims I talk to speak of it but I cannot find anything of it in the Quran - is it in hadiths?

I consider myself a sufi, but I suspect that many sufis would not consider me one because I don’t believe it’s necessary to be mentored by a sheikh and because I primarily discern things based on the sacred speech of Allah [the Qur’an] (whereas many sufis would take the traditions of sufi orders and would elevate that over the Qur’an’s teachings). I believe in things like tasawwuf, which is a science of the heart. I also believe in the concept of sainthood-- that there have been people throughout history who were not prophets, but were given miraculous gifts by God (i.e. gifts of healing, miraculous knowledge, etc). However, I believe in these things not because some sheikh says it-- I believe it because I see these concepts in Qur’an. You don’t need to be a prophet for The Almighty to speak to you, nor do you need to be a prophet to perform a miracle.

Hardly ever does a person like, say, Abdul-Qadir Jilani [may Allah have mercy on him] come around, so while I do believe that saints have existed and that there may even be some alive today, they are few and far between.

I use the Qur’an as a measuring stick, if you will. I don’t believe in something unless I see it in the scriptures or Hadiths. So, for example, things that many sufis do, like praying to saints, whirling around in circles and speaking random glossolalia, I reject. I reject them because they are not authentic teachings or traditions. No doubt, many sufis are astray, especially in light of the fact that you don’t need to be a muslim to be a sufi, but there is a type of Sufism that’s consistent with the Shariah, as men like Ahmad Sirhindi and Abdul-Qadir Jilani [may Allah have mercy on them] have proven.

You don’t have to be a sufi to be a muslim. Many of my siblings are not sufis and that’s fine. I just see the internal aspect to the Shariah as equally relevant to the external aspects. As for that narration of there allegedly being 144,00 prophets, I couldn’t find it. What I found are message boards with contradictory numbers and hearsay, but no solid evidence to substantiate how many prophets there were. It’s more-or-less irrelevant anyway. We muslims believe that every nation had its own prophet; how many there were is not important.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks drac

You are an interesting chap - a halfway house between Sufi and mainstream Sunni (I hope that label wasn’t offensive). From what I can see, you believe in the uniqueness of the Quran as God’s revelation, which you may interpret using tasawwuf to supplement tafsir, as provided by the muftis (as opposed to tasawwuf as a fully independent alternative to tafsir). This adds another colour to the diversity of Islamic thought.

Thanks for your reponse on the 144000 hidden prophets. If the number is not mentioned, is there any reference to just hidden prophets, irrespective of number. I think the concept is important as it would imply an in-built requirement in Islam for religious tolerance, which is something that seems a little scarce in the Muslim world today, especially where I live.

 

[ggarcia19]

I noticed that half of " The infancy gospel of Thomas" is in the Quran, when Jesus makes the clay birds come alive. But the other half of that chapter is horrible. It makes Jesus look like a killer when a young man bumps into him and Jesus says, “you will not continue your course”. Now, maybe the Catholic church keeps a record of the non prophetic books or scrolls so that they will know of false religions. I am not bashing on Islam, I am just saying maybe this is the case…

You can google search “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” and compare it to the scriptures in the Quran. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

Again, I am not bashing anyone, I just find it interesting…

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It is my belief that Mohammed probably new much less than what has been put forth in the Quran. I pray for Muslims everyday that they accept the real Jesus.

Can you imagine the force of evangelization for the rest of the world if they did?

 

[jimkhong]

I noticed that half of " The infancy gospel of Thomas" is in the Quran, when Jesus makes the clay birds come alive. But the other half of that chapter is horrible. It makes Jesus look like a killer when a young man bumps into him and Jesus says, “you will not continue your course”. Now, maybe the Catholic church keeps a record of the non prophetic books or scrolls so that they will know of false religions. I am not bashing on Islam, I am just saying maybe this is the case…

I have had an interest in apocrphal gospels, tracking down and buying them in the days before the internet, before they became well known. What makes them more quaint was that they were not popular enough then to be soft-cover and so they come only in old-style hard-cover. They were among the favourites in my library and Gospel of Thomas was an especially interest, possibly as well as any book repeatedly bashed up by the early Church Fathers can be attractive to a young man like me then. The Gospel of Thomas was criticised by the Church for the reason, among others, that disgusted you. Any orthodox Christian reading it can tell that it is not what Jesus was about.

The Church slowly evolved the NT canon, you may say. The final list had to clear certain hurdles to be considered part of the authentic and inspired Christian scriptures but there was no committee to to review it. It was more a general consensus that gradually emerged from the different churches’ litugical use. By the time of the first Ecumenical Council, the list of NT books were unanimously accepted in the Western Church (and more or less so by the Eastern Churches) and the Church ratified (rather than issued) the list of the NT books. After that, all the other books that didn’t make it fell into disuse. Many of them were lost until re-discovered again in the last few centuries. Of course, the existance of these non-canonical books were known from the writings of the early Church Fathers. But there was no list of non-canonical books. There is no point keeping such a list once the list of canon was ratified - anything not on that list would be non-canonical. One of the books in my library had a list of 8 Infancy Gospels alone (including infancy of Mary).

But some of the non-canonical NT are read in the Divine Office today and I especially recommend 1 Clement and the Didache - why they did not make it into the NT canon I don’t know. These books were used by some churches in the liturgy until 3rd century, together with Sheperd of Hermas, Letter of Banabas and Letter to Diognetus. I would recommend reading them as they describe a church structure (bishops, etc) and worship (the sacrifice of the mass) that seem so familiar to us today.

 

[MartinJordan]

The Gospel of Thomas was criticised by the Church for the reason, among others, that disgusted you

I can vouch that if Muslims actually read the Gospel of Thomas they would be quite unhappy themselves.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

I can vouch that if Muslims actually read the Gospel of Thomas they would be quite unhappy themselves.

MJ

That would depend. I am sure Mohammad had read it, or at least the Infancy Gospel to the Arabs which is a derivation from the Gospel of Thomas.

I say it depends because of the different mind-set. For many (but not all), Muslim doctrine is that obedience to God’s word takes precedence over everything else (after all, the word Islam means total submission to God). So, while virtues like love and forgiveness (or not being as nasty as the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, for that matter) are praised in the Quran, they are not as central to the religion as in Christianity - only following God’s revelation is.

One example to illustrate this difference is the story of the adulterous woman: In Jn, Jesus forgave her despite the injunction in the Torah. When faced with a similar scenario in the hadiths (Muslims can correct me if my recollection if incorrect), Mohammad ordered the woman to be stoned because the Torah (God’s revelation) says so. Now, I am not saying that Muslims do not teach love and forgiveness. Au contraire. It just doesn’t define a Muslim like it does a Christian. What defines a Muslim is his/her total submission to God’s will as revealed in the Quran. What defines a Christian is loving one another as Jesus had loved us (the one commandment that Jesus left us), but God knows how often we fall short.

 

[MartinJordan]

That would depend. I am sure Mohammad had read it, or at least the Infancy Gospel to the Arabs which is a derivation from the Gospel of Thomas.

Oh yes. Thanks for reminding me of the Infancy Gospels. However, I thought Mohammed was illiterate?

I say it depends because of the different mind-set. For many (but not all), Muslim doctrine is that obedience to God’s word takes precedence over everything else (after all, the word Islam means total submission to God). So, while virtues like love and forgiveness (or not being as nasty as the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, for that matter) are praised in the Quran, they are not as central to the religion as in Christianity - only following God’s revelation is.

Noted.

One example to illustrate this difference is the story of the adulterous woman: In Jn, Jesus forgave her despite the injunction in the Torah. When faced with a similar scenario in the hadiths (Muslims can correct me if my recollection if incorrect), Mohammad ordered the woman to be stoned because the Torah (God’s revelation) says so. Now, I am not saying that Muslims do not teach love and forgiveness. Au contraire. It just doesn’t define a Muslim like it does a Christian. What defines a Muslim is his/her total submission to God’s will as revealed in the Quran. What defines a Christian is loving one another as Jesus had loved us (the one commandment that Jesus left us), but God knows how often we fall short.

Ive heard of this thanks. That said Jesus’ message and forgiveness is to be imitated and there is nothing greater than HIS Grace and teachings. No better way to get to Heaven.

MJ

 

[Augustine3]

I noticed that half of " The infancy gospel of Thomas" is in the Quran, when Jesus makes the clay birds come alive. But the other half of that chapter is horrible. It makes Jesus look like a killer when a young man bumps into him and Jesus says, “you will not continue your course”. Now, maybe the Catholic church keeps a record of the non prophetic books or scrolls so that they will know of false religions. I am not bashing on Islam, I am just saying maybe this is the case…

You can google search “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” and compare it to the scriptures in the Quran. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

Again, I am not bashing anyone, I just find it interesting…

Here are some more

Qu’ran

“ And we ordained that he refused suck at first, until (His sister came up and) said: “Shall I point out to you the people of a house that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?” [Quran*28:12] ”

Talmud

“ The Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “Shall the mouth that will one day speak to me suckle from anything unclean?”

Qu’ran

“ But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration. Saying: “We believe in the Lord of the Worlds,- The Lord of Moses and Aaron.” [Quran*7:120] --Translated by Yusuf Ali ”
Ambrosiaster

“ Jannes and Jambres were two brothers, magicians and enchanters of the Egyptians, who through phony magic thought to resist God’s mighty acts. But worsted by Moses they confessed in pain from their sores that God was active in Moses.

Quran

“ Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: “O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?” She said: “From Allah: for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure.”[Quran*3:37] ”

Gospel of James

“ And Mary was in the Temple nurtured like a dove and received food from the hand of an angel.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Does this indicate the likelihood that most of what Mohammad knew of Christianity came from the apocryphal writings and the Gnostics who wrote them? If so, wouldn’t that mean that Mohammad’s misunderstanding of the Christian Trinity as polytheistic was due his learning about Jesus from the Gnostics, with the polytheistic nature of their understanding of the Trinity.

I’d just like to point out that this Gospel isn’t considered Gnostic; it was written too late. It’s definitely New Testament Apocrypha, but its exclusion from the Bible doesn’t automatically make it a Gnostic text.

I am curious though, what makes you think that Gnostics had a polytheistic understanding of the Trinity? There was no monolithic form of Gnosticism in the first few centuries AD, but one of the earliest and most explicit references to the unity of the Trinity comes from the Gospel of Philip – a Valentinian text.

 

[jimkhong]

I’d just like to point out that this Gospel isn’t considered Gnostic; it was written too late. It’s definitely New Testament Apocrypha, but its exclusion from the Bible doesn’t automatically make it a Gnostic text.

I am curious though, what makes you think that Gnostics had a polytheistic understanding of the Trinity? There was no monolithic form of Gnosticism in the first few centuries AD, but one of the earliest and most explicit references to the unity of the Trinity comes from the Gospel of Philip – a Valentinian text.

It is a pleasure to meet a Gnostic on this forum - we really have the diversity here.

I agree we really do not know for sure who wrote the Infancy Gospel to the Arabs and it is not part of the Gnostic canon, but many of the stories therein echo those in the Gospel of Thomas. It is clear therefore those who wrote and follow the Infancy Gospel to the Arabs have Gnostics influence in their teachings, if not Gnostics themselves.

It is not the intention of this thread to debate the Gnostic concepts of Christology and the Trinity (we can always start another thread on it ). My point is that the Church rejected Gnostic concepts of triplicity as not being in conformance with orthodox doctrines of the Trinity (of course Gnostics will disagree with the Church’s consensus but that is another thread). Therefore, if Mohammad had come across Gnostics teachings (Gnosticist sects were known to exist even after the rise of Islam, particularly in the East beyond the Byzantine Empire) such as the demiurge (and I think it likely), he would have perceived it as polytheism and incorrectly understood it as orthodox Christian teachings to be rejected.

In fact, much of what Mohamad knew about Christianity is from an Ebionite, another strand of Christianity considered a heresy by orthodox/catholic Christians. Would the hsitory of the world be different if Mohammad had learnt orthodox/catholic Christian faith from the Church?

 

[Katie_Kilbane]

Hello -

I am new to these forums. I was reading this thread and I would like to say that just because some Quranic verses are similar to verses in the Bible or other non-canonical scriptures/writings, this is not a sure proof that the Quran is copied from those books! Such a claim is unjust (although not surprising as the same claims were made at the time of the Revelation).

And those who disbelieve say, “This [Quran] is not except a falsehood he (Muhammad) invented, and another people assisted him in it.” But they have committed an injustice and a lie. And they say, “Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” (The Quran 25:4-5)

May Almighty God guide us all to the Straight Path and on the Straight Path,