What is the Scriptural Basis for Islam's Belief in Jesus as the Messiah?

[agent_grey]

The are a number of verses in the Qur’an which leaves no doubt that the Bible has indeed been corrupted and one such example is:

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. … [Qur’an 4:157]

This verse clearly exposes the falsehood entered by the scribes that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was crucified by stating in clear terms that Jesus was not crucified.

The Qur’an also says that those who claim that Jesus was crucified do not have knowledge and only follow mere assumptions. Who then is saying that Jesus was crucified? The Bible suggests so and Christians follow and believe it. Thus the Qur’an is actually exposing the corruption of the Bible.

Since there is no Christian or Jew in the world who can answer the question of who was it that wrote the Bible, then the onus is really on Christians and Jews to prove that the Bible that we have today has not been corrupted by unknown hands through the ages.

The fact of the matter is that both books are a mixture of truth and error. The belief in and expectation of scriptural infallibility is flat out Idolatry. Them that take such a position ultimately worship an imaginary literature God.

Here is the thing. The closest any of us will get to the truth is the universal conscience which all normal healthy humans have natural access to. The problem is that both the Hebrew bible and the Quran contradict the universal conscience on multiple points and levels. When one accepts these human works as the truth over and above the moral law the fracturing of the conscience is an inevitable thing and as such the separation from God a natural and proper outcome.

Scripture is a primitive human effort used to convey a primitive idea be it Good or Evil to future generations. The forbidden fruit is in a scence a metaphore for scripture itself. The command to not eat of it is in a scence a metaphore for the improper use of scripture.

 

[sedonaman]

… The command to not eat of it is in a scence a metaphore for the improper use of scripture.

It’s more basic than that. “Partaking of the forbidden fruit” is a metaphor for man playing God, i.e., deciding what is right and wrong, good and evil. That’s God’s job.

 

[hamba2han]

The fact of the matter is that both books are a mixture of truth and error. The belief in and expectation of scriptural infallibility is flat out Idolatry. Them that take such a position ultimately worship an imaginary literature God.

Here is the thing. The closest any of us will get to the truth is the universal conscience which all normal healthy humans have natural access to. The problem is that both the Hebrew bible and the Quran contradict the universal conscience on multiple points and levels. When one accepts these human works as the truth over and above the moral law the fracturing of the conscience is an inevitable thing and as such the separation from God a natural and proper outcome.

Scripture is a primitive human effort used to convey a primitive idea be it Good or Evil to future generations. The forbidden fruit is in a scence a metaphore for scripture itself. The command to not eat of it is in a scence a metaphore for the improper use of scripture.

I have mentioned this on an earlier thread but I do believe that it is well worth mentioning again:

Since faith is the relationship between the creations and their Creator, then in order for the creations to derive the maximum benefit from this relationship, it therefore has to be as pure and as simple as it can possibly be just like the relationship between a baby and it’s mother.

In fact, a baby can indeed survive if it’s mother is no longer around whereas it is simply not possible for the creations to survive without their Creator, and so this means that in that sense, the creations need to have a relationship with their Creator and Sustain-er which is even more pure and more simple than the relationship of a baby and it’s mother.

And therefore, I would urge you to stop thinking in metaphors regarding your relationship with your Lord and Creator and instead to start relating to Him in very, very real terms as if He is closer to you than anyone you have ever met in your life… and which BTW, He most certainly is:

And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein … {Al-Qur’an 50:16}

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You apparently don’t know the difference between Muslims and Islam.

There is an old joke about the gossip columnist who answered a reader’s question, “Does actress So-And-So have any talent?”, by responding with, “She loves her mother.” There is a similar non-sequitur with many non-Muslims who think, “I know some Muslims who are nice; therefore, Islam is good.” Put another way, there are some Christians who are bad. Does that make Christianity bad? I have been in this type of discussion before, and every one of them ends up the same way when someone uses “Muslims” and “Islam” interchangeably.

You made a statement that I disagreed with, and I posted an explanation with plenty of references. You countered, not with a reasoned argument supporting your position or showing why my reference is wrong, but with an ad hominem attack. This is an admission that you have lost the argument, so I consider this discussion over. :tiphat:

So do I and I know I right. You are just a bigot.

 

[sedonaman]

The are a number of verses in the Qur’an which leaves no doubt that the Bible has indeed been corrupted and one such example is:

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. … [Qur’an 4:157]

This verse clearly exposes the falsehood entered by the scribes that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was crucified by stating in clear terms that Jesus was not crucified.

The Qur’an also says that those who claim that Jesus was crucified do not have knowledge and only follow mere assumptions. Who then is saying that Jesus was crucified? The Bible suggests so and Christians follow and believe it. Thus the Qur’an is actually exposing the corruption of the Bible.

Since there is no Christian or Jew in the world who can answer the question of who was it that wrote the Bible, then the onus is really on Christians and Jews to prove that the Bible that we have today has not been corrupted by unknown hands through the ages.

Christians in general do not accept the authority of the Qur’an. You will have to come up with some other.

 

[schaick]

The are a number of verses in the Qur’an which leaves no doubt that the Bible has indeed been corrupted and one such example is:

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. … [Qur’an 4:157]

This verse clearly exposes the falsehood entered by the scribes that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was crucified by stating in clear terms that Jesus was not crucified.

The Qur’an also says that those who claim that Jesus was crucified do not have knowledge and only follow mere assumptions. Who then is saying that Jesus was crucified? The Bible suggests so and Christians follow and believe it. Thus the Qur’an is actually exposing the corruption of the Bible.

Since there is no Christian or Jew in the world who can answer the question of who was it that wrote the Bible, then the onus is really on Christians and Jews to prove that the Bible that we have today has not been corrupted by unknown hands through the ages.

All that verse means is that Mohammd the self-proclaimed prophet didn’t know history. No one saw or heard an “angel” speaking to Mohammad. All he displayed what could be diagnosed with Temporal Lobe Seizures and in fact someome during his childhood did claim Mohammad had seizures!!

Multiple eyewitnesses wrote about the crucifixion and there were multiple eyewitnesses that could dispute if the event was written down inaccurately.

Who wrote the Quran? We know companions of Mohammad wrote originally on rocks, bones and leaves. Where are these? We are very certain of the majority of the 40 some GOD inspired Bible authors.

Too bad Uthmann burned the many varying Qurans that we don’t really know that the Qurans that were saved are true.

 

[elwill]

All that verse means is that Mohammd the self-proclaimed prophet didn’t know history. No one saw or heard an “angel” speaking to Mohammad. All he displayed what could be diagnosed with Temporal Lobe Seizures and in fact someome during his childhood did claim Mohammad had seizures!!

Multiple eyewitnesses wrote about the crucifixion and there were multiple eyewitnesses that could dispute if the event was written down inaccurately.

Who wrote the Quran? We know companions of Mohammad wrote originally on rocks, bones and leaves. Where are these? We are very certain of the majority of the 40 some GOD inspired Bible authors.

Too bad Uthmann burned the many varying Qurans that we don’t really know that the Qurans that were saved are true.

Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims, resulting in their putting forward an alternative text of the Quran.

How could `Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor?

 

[schaick]

…
How could `Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor?

Not every verse had been memorized by any one companion. There was a battle where 700 Muslims were killed. A man named Salim was killed he had memorized the most verses. It was this loss of people that had memorized the Quran that prompted the Quran being compiled. We have no idea what verses were lost with Salim-maybe that is why the one chapter is so short.

Why did Uthman have to burn the other Qurans after he compiled the one he wanted to keep? He was destroying evidence! Why? If it was the same, why the need to destroy something that would have supported the history of the Quran?

Then there is the whole history of the Hafsah codex compiled in 634 the earliest Quran. Hafsah was able to keep it from Uthmann but then destroyed in 667 when Hafsh who was protecting it died. Why was she so adamant about saving that version of the Quran? Why was Uthman so bent on destroying it?

Think about it your dellow Muslim destroyed the earliest Quran that contained directwords from Mohammad? And to think Muslims can’t set it on the ground? People have been killed and threatened when they burn the Quran!!

A sure sign of weakness of the cult and writtings of Islam.
Ayasha the child bride of Mohammad knew that there were verses missing one chapter had 200 and it was whittled down to 73. the stoning verses was left out which is very interesrintg concerning the sharia law of stoning and the fact that the first caliphs had adulters stoned.

All interesting because the Quran states:
024.002 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Then there are the satanic verses and Muslims killing people for even mentioning them.

The Quran has not come close to the type of scrutinity, testing, scholarly tearing apart of the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible has stood up to the test. Obviously the Quran can not, otherwise Muslims would allow it to be put through the very same tests that the Bible has.

Why would Christians put their Holy writtings to such a test? We desire truth.