Islam and heretic christian groups?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esdra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esdra

Guest
Hi folks,

in an article I’ve read that Muhammed never had contact to orthodox Christians, but most likely to heretic christian groups, and this only orally. Through these groups (or was it just one?) Muhammed learned about Christ that way and included his knowledge into the Qu’ran.

Anyone know which groups this might have been? Very likely they needed to be on the Arabian Peninsula…

Anyone have an internet site on that?

in Christ,
 
Esdra said:
Hi folks,

in an article I’ve read that Muhammed never had contact to orthodox Christians, but most likely to heretic christian groups, and this only orally. Through these groups (or was it just one?) Muhammed learned about Christ that way and included his knowledge into the Qu’ran.

Anyone know which groups this might have been? Very likely they needed to be on the Arabian Peninsula…

Anyone have an internet site on that?

in Christ,
Click to expand...
I believe the heretical sekt was Nestorianims. Nestorius was a Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century. He claimed that Jesus’s two natures divine and human were separated and that Mary gave the birth not to Jesus God but only to His human nature. With this statment he rejected Mary’s title Theotokos what the English speaking Catholics know as Mother of God.

The Nestorianism was spreading very quickly but was rejected as heresy. Therefore the followers settled down mostly on the Arabian Penisula.

Nestorianims, I believe, is still present in either Irak or Iran or both (somebody correct this if I am wrong here).

Now the notion is that Muhammed took that “human” Jesus and made Him the prophet (correction please if I’m wrong).
 
A reading of the criticism in the Quran indicates that Mohammed (pbuh) was most likely influenced by Alexandrian Gnosticism. A look at Sura 4:157 (al-Nisa) shows the idea that Jesus only appeared to be crucified, a view held by several heretical Christian groups.
 
annaevers said:
I believe the heretical sekt was Nestorianims. Nestorius was a Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century. He claimed that Jesus’s two natures divine and human were separated and that Mary gave the birth not to Jesus God but only to His human nature. With this statment he rejected Mary’s title Theotokos what the English speaking Catholics know as Mother of God.

The Nestorianism was spreading very quickly but was rejected as heresy. Therefore the followers settled down mostly on the Arabian Penisula.

Nestorianims, I believe, is still present in either Irak or Iran or both (somebody correct this if I am wrong here).

Now the notion is that Muhammed took that “human” Jesus and made Him the prophet (correction please if I’m wrong).
Click to expand...
The last remnant of what used to be called the Nestorian Church is the Assyrian Church of the East, which has cultural/ancestral roots in Iraq but is largely (I think mostly, but I’m not sure) now in diaspora and whose patriarch resides in Chicago. They still venerate Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius as saints, but whether they themselves, or indeed Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, ever ascribed to the Christological heresy known as Nestorianism is in dispute. Certainly there was great ecumenical progress with the Assyrian Church of the East in the 1990s, including a statement of agreement on our Christologies, so continuing to label them as Nestorians may be unwise.

Whether the relatively mainstream Christians of the Arabian Peninsula were Catholic or Nestorian in Mohammed’s time, Mohammed’s idea of who Jesus was differs radically from the beliefs of either. It also differed radically from the Gnostic idea of Christ, so even if there were Gnostics in the region that would not explain Mohammed’s position. I’ve also read that a very late remnant of the Ebionites may have still existed in Arabia at this time. If so that would be very interesting, since there are many parallels between Ebionism and Islam, including the idea of Jesus as a human prophet who was not God, as well as observing ritual laws of the Old Covenant and rejecting the use of alcohol. Even there though, I believe there would have been a difference between the Ebionite belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Muslim take on him.

Could Mohammed have been influenced by the Nestorian rejection of calling Mary Theotokos and the Docetist/Gnostic idea that Jesus only seemed to die on the Cross? Sure, it’s possible, but the Nestorians, Docetists, and Gnostics all would have found Mohammed’s beliefs on Christ extremely heretical nonetheless. I suspect the same is true of the Ebionites to a lesser degree, if the Ebionites really still existed by this time.
 
Fact is that Muhammed was a poor, ignorand peasant, who by chance marriad to a 20 year older wealthy woman that must have considered him as such. She probably was the one that introduced him to more cultural people who educated him and told him such stuff. If you read the qu´ran carefully, you will notice that there are no intelligent or divine phrases, just agressive language of a mediocre fool that wanted to be special. The ultimate goal of Muhammed was then also not to establish any religion, but to have a means by which he could bind people to follow him on his war rages and conquests. He was also laisy in componing his book. In stead of laying out laws, he repetedly says stuff like, ‘as is normal’, or ‘as is established’ (which generally means, stoning or quarting people.) Jesus preached love and tolerance. Muhammed preached hate and violence. He knew only little about Christians and Christianity. What he knew he was told by friends and family members who did not know to much either. There was a general distrust against christians in Medina, especially because this was a mainly jewish establishment and they were no really keen on christians.
 
For anyone who wishes to know which Christian groups Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) learned things about the Bible from, here is an invaluable tip for you:

THE WORD “PHARAOH” IN THE QUR’AN

In the Old Testament, the Egyptian ruler during the period of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and Prophet Joseph (pbuh) are named “Pharaoh”. However, this title was actually employed after the eras in which these two Prophets lived.

While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh), the word “Al-Malik” in Arabic is used in the Qur’an: It refers to a ruler, king or sultan:

The King said, ‘Bring him to me straight away!’… (Qur’an, 12:50)

The ruler of Egypt in the time of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to as “Pharaoh”. This distinction in the Qur’an is not made in the Old and New Testaments nor by Jewish historians. In the Bible, the word “Pharaoh” is used, in every reference to an Egyptian monarch. On the other hand, the Qur’an is far more concise and accurate in the terminology it employs.

The use of the word “Pharaoh” in Egyptian history belongs only to the late period. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. The Prophet Joseph (pbuh) lived at least 200 years before that time.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the word “Pharaoh” was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. Further information on this subject comes from the Academic American Encyclopaedia, which states that the title of Pharaoh began to be used in the New Kingdom.

As we have seen, the use of the word “Pharaoh” dates from a specific period in history. For that reason, the fact that the Qur’an distinguishes between the different Egyptian titles in different Egyptian eras is yet another proof that the Qur’an is indeed the verbatim Speech of God.

**In this way We give you news of what has gone before and We have given you a reminder direct from Us. Those who turn away from it will bear a heavy burden on the Day of Rising. ** … (Qur’an, 20:99-100)

And so then, in order to find out which Christian groups taught Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) about things in the Bible, a very useful clue would be to find the groups which used the word ‘King’ instead of ‘Pharaoh’ in their scriptures when referring to the rulers during the period of Prophet Abraham and Prophet Joseph (peace be upon them).
 
hamba2han said:
…As we have seen, the use of the word “Pharaoh” dates from a specific period in history. For that reason, the fact that the Qur’an distinguishes between the different Egyptian titles in different Egyptian eras is yet another proof that the Qur’an is indeed the verbatim Speech of God.
…
Click to expand...
Recognition of a historical fact by itself is not proof of anything. You need some corroborating evidence. Since Islam didn’t come into existence until the seventh century, the Muslims who conquered Egypt probably got the idea from the Christian Copts who were living in Egypt at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top