If Islam didn't have Jesus as a prophet....

[Darryl1958]

Cave origins of the Qur’an? Very little of the Qur’an is said to have been revealed in a cave.

You know what I am saying.

Of course, the Qur’an drew on the concepts and stories current at the time. Every revelation does that. How else could it be comprehensible? But Hagarism denies thaat ther was ever even a historical Muhammad! That goes far beyond what even the Jesus Seminar attempts to do.

There is more historical evidence for an historic Jesus than there is for an historic Mohammed. Moreover, questioning the existence of Jesus has never been outside of the acceptable bounds of modern historic research. Whether or not he is existed is moot to the argument I have been making though, which has attempted to keep centred on the original concept of Jesus and the Koran, and how the name Jesus served a political end for the emerging Islamic Empire.

Of course there are some politics in play if by politics we mean the proper way to govern a community. The Medinian surahs are all about that. But you are talking about politics after the Arab invasions conquered the Middle East.

I have always been talking about how Jesus as a prophet in the Koran served to legitimate Islam as an official religion acceptable to the newly conquered peoples of the Byzantine Empire. You have made the point that Christianity made up an insignificant proportion of that population anyway, which I have disagreed with on a factual basis. You have also made the point that the same could not be said about the prophet of the Persians, who never merited mention. this is a fair enoug point. Arabs themselves of course are more closely related genetically and culturally with the Jews through Ishamel. as both real cousin and legendary progenitor. They recognize themselves as Hagarites.
Zoroastrianism at least was limited to Persia. Christianity extended beyond the limits of the House of Islam. Hence there was a special need for Islam to have an appeal to Christians in particular, in order to bring them in under the official religion.
It was not all overtly political. Sincere belief on behalf of the conquerors was likely there as well. There was however a greater need for Christians within to submit, and a good case can be made that Islam claiming Jesus as their own prophet served a very useful purpose of bringing Christians into the fold.

So is the conquest of the Byzantine and Sassanian territories, yet that precisely what you sought to make exemplary.

I would very much disagree that the conquest of Byzantium and Sassanian territories is tangential to the religion of Islam.Islam is about subduing the world, and bringing the world under the rule of Allah. The incredible, unprecedented success of the early conquests served very much as a sign for the truth of Islam to Muslims themselves.
Islam is a religion based in jihad. Jihad may not always be military, but military campaigning has always been central to jihad nevertheless.

Uh, no. Constantine’s conversion leads to the Council of Nicea which itself defines Orthodoxy.

Constantines conversion gave assent to Athanasian belief and condemned Arian belief. the books of the bible, the institution of church, the basic beliefs of orthodoxy, the understanding of the divine nature of Jesus, and the essential characteristics of Christianity were all in place before Nicea.That is not to say that Christianity was not heterodox. That is only to say that the fundamentals of what became official Catholic Orthodoxy precedes Nicea by centuries.

Really? So things like the Sermon of the Mount are really irrelevant?

Christian ethics, such as the Sermon of the Mount, are not unique to Christianity. Jesus as a rabbi and a prophet was not particularly unique to what had been taught already by Hebrew rabbis and prophets. His teachings, while startling and subversively wise and pithy, should not be considered really unique to himself. He himself notes that he was from that tradition, and was confirming what had already been taught.
What makes Jesus unique is not his wisdom. As Paul tells us, without the Resurrection, the Christian faith is futile.(1 Corinthians 15).
I suppose for those outside of Christianity who do not believe in the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus and the like, teachings take the more central role of who Jesus was. It is not that the teachings are irrelevant to Christians. The point is that Christianity is not about pulling rabbits out of a hat, or birds out of clay. It is about mortal man eating the fruits of the Tree of Life, and thereby taking the sting our of death.

 

[Darryl1958]

N

o, I am asking you to name some Jews roughly contemporaneous with Jesus who expected the Messiah to be born of a virgin but were not or never became Christians.

Yes, I know you were asking that. Jews that believed that of course became Christians though.
It is not as if Jesus fulfilling the role of Messiah was not a startling and unexpected turn of events, even in the understanding of his own closest disciples. The NT is clear on that. As the resurrected Jesus explains how he fulfills the prophets and the law to disciples he meets on the road, their ears were burning with the startling and unexpected way that God delivered them a Messiah.
This kind of startling and unexpected insights derived from the Bible are not untypical for the way that Jewish sages work though either. To follow the Jewish midrash as they tie together relationships between Biblical verses in unexpected ways is to understand that what would be unprecedented would be predictability in divine fulfillment of Scripture.

Jewish tradition can be found in the Midrash or the Talmud, so some references to those sources would certainly be admissible.

Jewish tradition at the time was also. the Septuagint, with books such as Maccabees, where the concept of bodily resurrection in the tale of the seven brothers becomes fully laid out as authentic Jewish belief, in a way that was not present in the earlier Torah and writings.

Surely if it was commonly believed that the Messiah would be born of a virgin there must be a record of some Jews who believed this and still didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah. It is not like there was any actual proof that Jesus was born of a virgin that people would rush to accept him on that basis.

The crucifixion of Christ scattered his disciples, like all acts of state terror and ritual sacrifice of the mob served to do in the past. What brought the people together again was not belief in virginal birth, but belief in the Resurrection of Christ, with their eyes being the proof that was necessary.

As far as I know there are only two gospels which refer to Jesus’ being born of a virgin. One is supposed to be written by a Jew (Matthew) and the other by a gentile (Luke.)

Okay. Two out of four dealt with this. And who did Luke learn his gospel from.
Was it not Paul who he is associated with. Paul is a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin.
The twelve apostles of the apostolic faith were all Jews.
This is not a controversial point.

Actually, I do believe in the Virgin Birth. So do Muslims. My point is that this was not prophesied in the Bible and the fact the story of Jesus birth gets tied in with the story of the Magi bringing gifts to the Christ child suggests to me that it was tied to Zoroastrian, not Jewish prophecies.

And yet, from a very early date, the fathers of Christianity tied it to the Bible.
There is a reason for the virginal birth of course, that involves more than miracle and magic.
Muslims and Bahai who follow their lead will not be able to grasp it though. for to recognize Jesus as the son of a Heavenly father speaks of the divine nature of the son.

Had these prophecies penetrated Judaism at the time, probably. But the fact the Magi even get mentioned suggests their foreign influence is recognized. I have even heard some scholars argue that the term Pharisee was derived from a word for Persian, that it was a derogatory term used by Sadducees to emphasize the fact that so many of their ideas (such as the belief in the resurrection) were borrowed from a foreign religion.

It would be surprising that a people who addressed Cyrus as the Lords Messiah would not tthereafter have had some influence by the people who delivered them from the jaws of Babylon.

And you know of a Hebrew manuscript that said virgin in Isiah 7 rather than young woman?

That is not the nature of the preservation of ancient texts is it? There are no extant physical documents available to us earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know. Masoretic Hebrew texts are from a later date too.
There are places in the Dead Sea scrolls where the translation agrees with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic.
It is just the nature of writing that there are variances. We cannot assume therefore that the Masoretic text as it exists today is the correct one, just because it is in Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew too. and it is as authentic as any other version.

No, I don’t accept that on faith. It is the consensus of scholarly opinion on the subject. Hagarism represents an attempt to understand the origins of Islam without any reference to its own sources. That would be like trying to reconstruct the history of early Christianity by ignoring the NT and the early church fathers entirely and instead looking at only what hostile Roman sources were saying. One would conclude that the early Christians practiced cannibalism!

Nothing should be ignored. Focusing on friendly sources gives only half the picture too.

 

[smaneck]

You know what I am saying.

Other than being derogatory towards the Qur’an, no I don’t know.

There is more historical evidence for an historic Jesus than there is for an historic Mohammed.

So argue the Hagarists but the consensus of academic scholarly opinion states the opposite.

Moreover, questioning the existence of Jesus has never been outside of the acceptable bounds of modern historic research.

No, it isn’t. But most academics would conclude that he did exist but with less evidence than we have for Muhammad.

Whether or not he is existed is moot to the argument I have been making though, which has attempted to keep centred on the original concept of Jesus and the Koran, and how the name Jesus served a political end for the emerging Islamic Empire.

No, it isn’t moot because your whole argument rests upon the false assumption that the Qur’an wasn’t composed until after the founding of an Islamic Empire.

Constantines conversion gave assent to Athanasian belief and condemned Arian belief. the books of the bible, the institution of church, the basic beliefs of orthodoxy, the understanding of the divine nature of Jesus, and the essential characteristics of Christianity were all in place before Nicea.

Actually, no. Constantine didn’t have the foggiest idea who was right about the Arian controversy, he just believed it was his obligation as emperor to make sure the unity of the church was preserved. Therefore, he called for a church council to resolve the issue. He was prepared to enforce whatever decision they made. As for the books of the Bible, the canon was not yet closed when Constantine converted. It was his ordering of fifty copies of the Bible which really settled the issue. To make fifty copies of anything in antiquity, let alone a mammoth work like the Bible insured it would remain the standard version.

 

[smaneck]

N
Yes, I know you were asking that. Jews that believed that of course became Christians though.

There is no reason why they necessarily would. It is not at all clear that the Apostle Paul, for instance, was acquainted with the circumstances surrounding Jesus birth. It is perfectly possible for a person to believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin and still not think Jesus was that Messiah.

It is not as if Jesus fulfilling the role of Messiah was not a startling and unexpected turn of events, even in the understanding of his own closest disciples. The NT is clear on that. As the resurrected Jesus explains how he fulfills the prophets and the law to disciples he meets on the road, their ears were burning with the startling and unexpected way that God delivered them a Messiah.

Yes, but that has more to do with the fact that Jesus was not going to be a Five Star General, defeating the Romans and ruling a newly independent Israel.

Jewish tradition at the time was also. the Septuagint, with books such as Maccabees, where the concept of bodily resurrection in the tale of the seven brothers becomes fully laid out as authentic Jewish belief, in a way that was not present in the earlier Torah and writings.

I realize that the Pharisees believed in the Resurrection. That was the distinction between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, a distinction Paul is able to use to his advantage. If resurrection is mentioned in Maccabees that further substantiates my assertion that these ideas emerged during the Hellenistic period when Jews and Zoroastrians had the most contact with one another.

The crucifixion of Christ scattered his disciples, like all acts of state terror and ritual sacrifice of the mob served to do in the past. What brought the people together again was not belief in virginal birth, but belief in the Resurrection of Christ, with their eyes being the proof that was necessary.

Not really relevant to this discussion.

Okay. Two out of four dealt with this. And who did Luke learn his gospel from.
Was it not Paul who he is associated with.

Sorry, we have no real evidence that Paul knew anything about the virgin birth. For him the gospel was all about justification by faith, period. He shows very little interest in anything involving Jesus’ life other than the crucifixion, resurrection and the Eucharist. And his description of the resurrection is the least physical of them all.

Paul is a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin.
The twelve apostles of the apostolic faith were all Jews.

Relevance? I think we all know he was a Hellenized Jew.

This is not a controversial point.

So why bring it up?

And yet, from a very early date, the fathers of Christianity tied it to the Bible.
There is a reason for the virginal birth of course, that involves more than miracle and magic.
Muslims and Bahai who follow their lead will not be able to grasp it though. for to recognize Jesus as the son of a Heavenly father speaks of the divine nature of the son.

It would be surprising that a people who addressed Cyrus as the Lords Messiah would not tthereafter have had some influence by the people who delivered them from the jaws of Babylon.

That is not the nature of the preservation of ancient texts is it? There are no extant physical documents available to us earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know. Masoretic Hebrew texts are from a later date too.
There are places in the Dead Sea scrolls where the translation agrees with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic.
It is just the nature of writing that there are variances. We cannot assume therefore that the Masoretic text as it exists today is the correct one, just because it is in Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew too. and it is as authentic as any other version.

Nothing should be ignored. Focusing on friendly sources gives only half the picture too.

 

[MartinJordan]

Who said Islam do not worship Yahweh? Catholicism doesn’t teach that. Only that they have an imperfect understanding of God.

Please do not undermine our worship by insinuating what Catholics may not know. The main point is Church has taught for 2000 years that everything is in honor of our Creator.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

I forgot to include that “Yahweh” name is not be used in Catholic worship since the actual word is a Tetragrammaton YHWH which cannot be pronounced.

MJ

 

[smaneck]

Who said Islam do not worship Yahweh? Catholicism doesn’t teach that.

Doormouse was saying that.

Please do not undermine our worship by insinuating what Catholics may not know.

How does that undermine your worship?

 

[MartinJordan]

Doormouse was saying that.

Pls give me his statement where he said this if you please.

How does that undermine your worship?

If you didn’t mean it that way I Maybe I should have worded it differently.

Doesn’t it matter whether a Catholic actually understands the etymology? Regardless a Catholic has to follow Church teaching or should be willing to learn it better if one doesn’t understand the teaching.

MJ

 

[Darryl1958]

[Other than being derogatory towards the Qur’an, no I don’t know.

Oh, I see.
So much for you apology.

Good bye.
[/quote]

 

[smaneck]

Pls give me his statement where he said this if you please.

You could have scrolled up for yourself.

is the God of islam Yahweh ?

if not why not?

you see ive asked a lot of muslims this question.and the first thing they say is no,full stop.

but the Christian God is and the Jewish God is.so why not islam?

 

[MartinJordan]

You could have scrolled up for yourself.

It’s because I didn’t find it.

Now that you showed me, I still don’t see where he says it.

He says :you see ive asked a lot of muslims this question.and the first thing they say is no,full stop.

Muslims are saying it?

MJ

 

[smaneck]

It’s because I didn’t find it.

Now that you showed me, I still don’t see where he says it.

He says :you see ive asked a lot of muslims this question.and the first thing they say is no,full stop.

Muslims are saying it?

I doubt that very much. Ask Doormouse yourself whether he believes that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. If he says he does, then I’ll agree it was all a misunderstanding.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Actually the Announcement to Mary is nearly identical in the Qur’an as it is in the Bible. There are no direct quotes because the Bible had never been translated into Arabic. In fact Arabic was only beginning to develop a written language during the time of Muhammad. The Qur’an is the very first book to be written in that language.

That the Bible was not translated into Arabic is a non sequitor, and completely misses the point I was getting at. My point was that the New Testament was written with references to the Old Testament to affirm that it was coming in line with previous revelations. The Quran does not do that - it is a revelation in a vacuum. You say “Well there was no Arabic Bible” - that’s beside the point. The evangelist Matthew often quotes directly from the Hebrew, translated into Greek (and I’m not talking about the Septuagint).

Mohammad probably had some inkling of stories (hence the similarities, as you say, but I’ve never denied there were similarities), but he had nothing to go on. He wasn’t acquainted with the Old Testament like the apostles, who had been gifted by Christ to see him in all the scriptures.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think what the Qur’an says about Christians (not Christianity) is an accurate reflection of what Christians around Arabia at the time believed.

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say. Muslims that I have spoken to about this are saying that we can never know which Christian sects were right or wrong. Had the other Gnostic writings were incorporated into the Bible, Christian belief may not be the same today.

This also explains the reason Mohammad did not have it right about Christian’s teaching. A few that is mentioned in the Quran are the Trinity, Mary as the wife in that component and the denial of death and resurrection of Jesus.

I didn’t say the “Gospel of his time” I said the Gospel. And I was speaking of what the Qur’an itself says about the Gospel.

The notion of “corruption of the holy text” initially referred to interpretations but the idea that texts themselves were deliberately corrupted in order to leave out prophecies regarding Muhammad comes to be accepted by Muslims after the first few centuries and was not part of the 18th century innovations.

This has not been convincingly explained by Muslims except mentioning it as it were.

On the surface, that seems to contradict itself. If Mohammad accepted the Bible, then that Bible did not foretell that he would come. Today Muslims argue that it is in the promise of the Holy Spirit, he being Mohammad. Unless of course the ‘Bible’ that Mohammad knew was not the same what we have today. BTW the Bible was already in use by the Church then. Christians could point to what the Bible was as it was canonized about three hundred years before.

If in any case Mohammad was really prophesized, there was certainly no reference to its omission. So the closest we have is the promise of the Holy Spirit. That would be the line you are suggesting since it was by interpretation that the Bible was wrong by the Christians.

Baha’u’llah, however, has this to say about it:
“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? . . . Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!”
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-3.html

Regardless of what Baha’u’llah might say.

 

[smaneck]

This has not been convincingly explained by Muslims except mentioning it as it were.

Perhaps you should read the Qur’an for yourself instead of relying on what Muslims tell you about it?

On the surface, that seems to contradict itself. If Mohammad accepted the Bible, then that Bible did not foretell that he would come. Today Muslims argue that it is in the promise of the Holy Spirit, he being Mohammad.

They are not saying that Muhammad is the Holy Spirit, if that’s what you mean. And Muslims point to other biblical passages which they believe point to Muhammad.

Unless of course the ‘Bible’ that Mohammad knew was not the same what we have today.

As I keep saying, there was no Bible in Arabic at the time.

BTW the Bible was already in use by the Church then. Christians could point to what the Bible was as it was canonized about three hundred years before.

 

[shaky]

Perhaps you should read the Qur’an for yourself instead of relying on what Muslims tell you about it?

They are not saying that Muhammad is the Holy Spirit, if that’s what you mean. And Muslims point to other biblical passages which they believe point to Muhammad.

As I keep saying, there was no Bible in Arabic at the time.

BTW the Bible was already in use by the Church then. Christians could point to what the Bible was as it was canonized about three hundred years before.

Why do Muslims say ‘‘Paul was a false Apostle’’. But the rest of the disciples of Jesus were true Apostles ?
Paul is mentioned in the Quran.

 

[smaneck]

Why do Muslims say ‘‘Paul was a false Apostle’’. But the rest of the disciples of Jesus were true Apostles ?

Well, Paul wasn’t exactly a disciple because he didn’t become a Christian until after Jesus’ crucifixion. I think it also is because they find Pauline theology harder to reconcile with Islam. But there is nothing condemning Paul in either the Qur’an or the hadith.

 

[shaky]

Well, Paul wasn’t exactly a disciple because he didn’t become a Christian until after Jesus’ crucifixion. I think it also is because they find Pauline theology harder to reconcile with Islam. But there is nothing condemning Paul in either the Qur’an or the hadith.

Neither was Luke exactly a disciple of Christ. Luke like Paul came after the time of Christ while he was on the earth.
I was i bit surprised to see it written in the Quran that christ was not really crucified and never died.
Yet Christ did tell the disciples that he would suffer and be killed in Jerusalem. and be raised again on the third day. Matt 16:21.
In verse 22 Peter rebuked christ. Christ said to Peter ‘‘get behind me Satan’’. you are a offense unto me. for you consider not the things of God. but those that be of Men.
Later in Acts 10:39-40. Peter did preach about Christ being killed and raised on the third day.

With scripture showing us with Christ saying he will be killed and raised on the third day and Peter and other disciples witnessing and preaching this. Paul only preached what he heard from the other disciples about the death burial and resurrection of Christ. On top of that we have the Jews and the Romans as witnessing Christ being killed. I do find it hard to believe Mohammad who says otherwise centuries later.

Is their any evidence of any religion of People between the time of Christ and Mohammad that say Christ was never killed ?

 

[smaneck]

Paul is mentioned in the Quran.

To my knowledge Paul is not mentioned in the Qur’an, some of his statements however, do find their way into the hadith literature where they are placed in Muhammad’s mouth.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, Paul wasn’t exactly a disciple because he didn’t become a Christian until after Jesus’ crucifixion. I think it also is because they find Pauline theology harder to reconcile with Islam. But there is nothing condemning Paul in either the Qur’an or the hadith.

Any follower of Jesus is a discliple. I am a disciple. One may argue as to Paul being an Apostle, but certainly not a disciple.