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

[smaneck]

I was i bit surprised to see it written in the Quran that christ was not really crucified and never died.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the Qur’anic passage. There is a video on this topic by a colleague of mine which you might find interesting:

vimeo.com/24841574

Keep in mind that in the Qur’an Jesus is reported to have said as a babe in arms:

“Blessed am I on the day of my birth, the day of my death and the day I come again.”

Sure sounds like he died to me!

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

Yes, gnostics and docetists, but I don’t think their arguments are what the Qur’an has in mind because their objections were based on the denigration of the body. These people were disinclined to believe that Christ had ever had a physical body to begin with. I don’t think these heresies influenced Muhammad because the Qur’an is nothing if not realistic about physical reality.

I think there are several possible explanations for this verse. It might mean that God hardened their hearts by allowing them to think they had succeeded in having Jesus killed, when in fact his spirit is immortal. The Qur’an forbids says of the martyrs that they are not dead: “Nay, they are living, only you are not aware” (2:154). This interpretation would fit with a later phrase in the passage, “and they slew him not of a certainty–no indeed; God raised him up to Him.” Or it might refer to the fact that the Jews did not actually kill Jesus. It was actually the Romans’ and ultimately God’s act. Some of the Jews of Medina were apparently boasting that their community had accomplished this.

In any case, Baha’is do accept the crucifixion as historically have some Muslims. Ismaeli Muslims as well as some Sufi mystics argued that only Jesus’’ human form was crucified, whereas his aspect as Spirit was received by God into heaven, and that the Qur’an meant only to deny the death of the Spirit.

For the Baha’i take on the Christ and the crucifixion you might find the following article interesting:

www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhjesu.htm

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

There are certain groups of Muslims who are hostile to Paul and they are quite certain that it was Paul and not Jesus who founded Christianity. They object to Paul as an apostle, he being not an eyewitness to Jesus. The fact that Paul met Jesus in a vision on the way to Damascus is conveniently ignored which is strange for a people who believe Mohammad’s word of his encounter with an angel in the cave.

They also object to Pauline theology as opposed to the Gospel while ignoring that Paul’s epistles are very much in line with the other letters of the NT as well.

Even if we leave out all the epistles of Paul, Islam still has to content with the Gospels which narrated the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus which it denies.

 

[Darryl1958]

The teachings of Islam are inconsistent with not ust Paul, but contradict virtually everything that is written by any of the evangelists in the entire New Testament.

 

[smaneck]

There are certain groups of Muslims who are hostile to Paul and they are quite certain that it was Paul and not Jesus who founded Christianity.

A lot of academics would agree with them. Some of the textbooks frequently used in World Civilization survey courses refer to Paul as the “Second Founder of Christianity” and credit him with having turned a Jewish Messianic sect into a World Religion.

Even if we leave out all the epistles of Paul, Islam still has to content with the Gospels which narrated the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus which it denies.

See my previous post on that subject.

 

[Reuben_J]

A lot of academics would agree with them. Some of the textbooks frequently used in World Civilization survey courses refer to Paul as the “Second Founder of Christianity” and credit him with having turned a Jewish Messianic sect into a World Religion.

So supposedly spiritual people are thinking like academics. No I am not disagreeing with you but I think it is merely one of the excuses for them to disparage Paul. Saying that is as good as saying that the caliphs were the one who founded Islam, not Mohammad, not the Quran.

 

[smaneck]

So supposedly spiritual people are thinking like academics. No I am not disagreeing with you but I think it is merely one of the excuses for them to disparage Paul. Saying that is as good as saying that the caliphs were the one who founded Islam, not Mohammad, not the Quran.

Have you heard of the Hagarism thesis? It is being promoted right here!

 

[Reuben_J]

Have you heard of the Hagarism thesis? It is being promoted right here!

Hi. No I don’t. I think I miss this thread for a while. Would you like to summarize that?

 

[smaneck]

Hi. No I don’t. I think I miss this thread for a while. Would you like to summarize that?

Daryll1958 has been trying to argue that the Qur’an was composed, not through Muhammad, but by Arabs after the invasion of the Syria.

 

[Reuben_J]

Daryll1958 has been trying to argue that the Qur’an was composed, not through Muhammad, but by Arabs after the invasion of the Syria.

OK. But I believe we were just talking about Paul. And you mentioned about the academics. How is this corelated?

 

[smaneck]

OK. But I believe we were just talking about Paul. And you mentioned about the academics. How is this corelated?

You said that taking this position was likely claiming that the Caliphs invented Islam. That is pretty much what the Hagarism theory is seeking to do.

 

[Reuben_J]

You said that taking this position was likely claiming that the Caliphs invented Islam. That is pretty much what the Hagarism theory is seeking to do.

So your point is? I still do not see the connection but forgive me for being very blurred in not understanding what you are trying to say. So I am doing a guessing work here.

First Muslims object to Paul as an apostle of Jesus because he was not an eyewitness. Christians see Paul’s apostleship as a result of direct calling by Jesus when Jesus appeared before him on the road to Damascus and what happened after that. That calling was no less than those apostles who were eye-witnesses to Jesus. The vision was a spiritual miracle, a grace of God. Muslims do not accept this. So I was saying, it is surprising that they don’t since they can accept Mohammad’s word that he met with an angel which is a spiritual miracle too (for the Muslims).

Second, selected Paul’s letters were part of the NT which were considered inspired. Again, inspiration is a work of God given to a prophet. Not much different when Mohammad got the Quran. Thus why it is difficult to accept Paul’s writing and not Mohammad’s?

Finally, Paul do not found Christianity, it was Jesus. The caliphs though they spread Islam, much of it by the sword, it was Mohammad through the Quran that Islam was founded, not the caliphs.

Paul had many epistles that became part of the Bible, but so were from other apostles. During the first century of Christianity, all apostles and disciples played roles in spreading it. They were all over the countries of the Mediterranean, North Africa and middle Asia. It cannot be attributed to Paul alone. So to say so is over exaggeration and belittling the other apostles’ contribution.

Remember that Christians accept the Bible as how Muslims would do to the Quran. The caliphs did not write the Quran, unless if we count the fact the one of them burnt all the other copies available at that time. Paul wrote part of the NT.

 

[smaneck]

First Muslims object to Paul as an apostle of Jesus because he was not an eyewitness. Christians see Paul’s apostleship as a result of direct calling by Jesus when Jesus appeared before him on the road to Damascus and what happened after that.

So everyone who has a vision is an apostle? I thought it was up to the Disciples themselves to add to their number (as when they elected one to replace Judas Iscariot.)

That calling was no less than those apostles who were eye-witnesses to Jesus. The vision was a spiritual miracle, a grace of God. Muslims do not accept this.

I don’t think they deny that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, but where does the Bible say that makes him an apostle?

Second, selected Paul’s letters were part of the NT which were considered inspired. Again, inspiration is a work of God given to a prophet.

I’m not sure that is how Muslims would see it. There is a difference between inspiration and revelation. Not all the writers of the NT are prophets.

Finally, Paul do not found Christianity, it was Jesus. The caliphs though they spread Islam, much of it by the sword, it was Mohammad through the Quran that Islam was founded, not the caliphs.

I’m glad you don’t accept Hagarism like others here. For the most part Islam did not spread by the sword. While the Islamic Empire certainly spread by the sword it was a full three centuries before the majority of people living in those lands become Islamicized.

Paul had many epistles that became part of the Bible, but so were from other apostles. During the first century of Christianity, all apostles and disciples played roles in spreading it. They were all over the countries of the Mediterranean, North Africa and middle Asia. It cannot be attributed to Paul alone. So to say so is over exaggeration and belittling the other apostles’ contribution.

Yes, but the doctrine of justification by faith comes from Paul and I think this is what Muslims can’t swallow.

Remember that Christians accept the Bible as how Muslims would do to the Quran. The caliphs did not write the Quran, unless if we count the fact the one of them burnt all the other copies available at that time. Paul wrote part of the NT.

The oldest parts in fact. Keep in mind, though, that Muslims accept Christ, but not Christianity.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Nearly all Muslims have it that Paul is the corrupter of Christianity. This is the best way to explain the descrepencies between the bible and the quran for them.

 

[shaky]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the Qur’anic passage. There is a video on this topic by a colleague of mine which you might find interesting:

vimeo.com/24841574

Keep in mind that in the Qur’an Jesus is reported to have said as a babe in arms:

“Blessed am I on the day of my birth, the day of my death and the day I come again.”

Sure sounds like he died to me!

Yes, gnostics and docetists, but I don’t think their arguments are what the Qur’an has in mind because their objections were based on the denigration of the body. These people were disinclined to believe that Christ had ever had a physical body to begin with. I don’t think these heresies influenced Muhammad because the Qur’an is nothing if not realistic about physical reality.

I think there are several possible explanations for this verse. It might mean that God hardened their hearts by allowing them to think they had succeeded in having Jesus killed, when in fact his spirit is immortal. The Qur’an forbids says of the martyrs that they are not dead: “Nay, they are living, only you are not aware” (2:154). This interpretation would fit with a later phrase in the passage, “and they slew him not of a certainty–no indeed; God raised him up to Him.” Or it might refer to the fact that the Jews did not actually kill Jesus. It was actually the Romans’ and ultimately God’s act. Some of the Jews of Medina were apparently boasting that their community had accomplished this.

In any case, Baha’is do accept the crucifixion as historically have some Muslims. Ismaeli Muslims as well as some Sufi mystics argued that only Jesus’’ human form was crucified, whereas his aspect as Spirit was received by God into heaven, and that the Qur’an meant only to deny the death of the Spirit.

For the Baha’i take on the Christ and the crucifixion you might find the following article interesting:

www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhjesu.htm

It was a Sunni Muslim who i was talking too showing me from Surah 4:157> And because of their saying [boast]. We killed the Messiah Jesus, Son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah. But the killed him Not. Nor Crucified him. But the resemblance of Jesus was put over another Man. [And they killed that Man] and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no [certain] knowledge. They follow nothing but conjecture. For Surely they killed him not. Jesus Son of Mary.

At the time i did say to him the spirit of Jesus was not killed but his body was killed. But for some reason he believed the body of Jesus was not killed.

I did not Know other Muslims in a different denomination believe otherwise.

 

[shaky]

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.

I did see it shown on YouTube that Paul was mentioned by NAME in the Quran.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eArfpsAGtI

St Paul in the Quran-youtube

 

[shaky]

Yes, but the doctrine of justification by faith comes from Paul and I think this is what Muslims can’t swallow.

Justification by Faith did not come from Paul ONLY. Paul got the From the OT Scripture.
Paul says it in Romans 4:3-5.
But it is in Gen 15:6…And James says it in James 2:23.

Faith has to Come BEFORE works for one to be able to Produce the ‘‘Works of Faith’’
That is why one is Justified apart from Works. When one does the ‘‘Works of Faith’’ then he is Justified by his works. James 2:24

 

[smaneck]

It was a Sunni Muslim who i was talking too showing me from Surah 4:157> And because of their saying [boast]. We killed the Messiah Jesus, Son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah. But the killed him Not. Nor Crucified him. But the resemblance of Jesus was put over another Man. [And they killed that Man] and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no [certain] knowledge. They follow nothing but conjecture. For Surely they killed him not. Jesus Son of Mary.

At the time i did say to him the spirit of Jesus was not killed but his body was killed. But for some reason he believed the body of Jesus was not killed.

I did not Know other Muslims in a different denomination believe otherwise.

The vast majority of Muslims think like your Sunni friend does, unfortunately. I have any heard some suggest that God replaced Jesus with someone else on the cross.
I would never have become a Baha’i myself if it meant denying Christ’s crucifixion.

 

[smaneck]

I did see it shown on YouTube that Paul was mentioned by NAME in the Quran.

Uh, the video is pretty confusing. It is not the Qur’an which mentions Paul by name is a commentary written by Kathir on the Qur’anic verse 36:14

"When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, “Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you.”

The commentary argues that Antioch is the city referred to in this surah and that the three messengers are Peter, John and Paul. That’s a highly dubious interpretation of this surah, IMV.

Regardless, Paul is not mentioned by name in the Qur’an.

 

[smaneck]

Justification by Faith did not come from Paul ONLY. Paul got the From the OT Scripture.
Paul says it in Romans 4:3-5.
But it is in Gen 15:6…And James says it in James 2:23.

Actually, James kind of argues against Paul’s interpretation:

"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Faith has to Come BEFORE works for one to be able to Produce the ‘‘Works of Faith’’

Sure. Faith is primary. But Paul insists that we are justified by faith ** alone**.

 

[MartinJordan]

With regards to Paul and James:

Remember that Paul and James were writing to a different groups individually; also at a different time and situation plus the problems (that they were advising their respective groups) were also not the same. So we must be careful to how it is interpreted without the context.

MJ