Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[Sundance]

Scriptures do not speak. People read scriptures and interpret them as they read, and since people all interpret them differently that is why there are so many different interpretations. If everyone who read the scriptures interpreted them the same way, then everyone would agree and there would not be so many disagreements among Christians and so many denominations of Christianity.

Whenever people say that scriptures speak plainly of the truth of the matter what they are really saying is that they know what the scriptures mean and that implies that anyone who does not agree with their interpretation is wrong. The sad thing is that these people cannot even understand how arrogant that is.

Jesus never said He would return to Earth to establish a Kingdom; not even once in the entire NT did Jesus ever promise to return to Earth. Rather, Jesus said:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Unlike many verses in the NT, these verses have only one plain meaning, a meaning millions of Christians choose to gloss over because they want Jesus to return, but wanting something does not make it come to pass.

He does tell us that He Himself will return. Many times, speaking of Himself as the Son of Man, he says (to paraphrase), “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, coming in the clouds with angels.” In the book of Acts (1:11), after the Ascension, two men (really, they were angels) who were with the disciples speak of His Return,

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go up into heaven.” (New American Standard Bible)

As far as Him establishing His Kingdom on the Earth, in the book of Revelation, we see Him building a new Jerusalem on the Earth and sitting on the throne of King David as the Messiah. I know of no Christian who disputes these things.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

He does tell us that He Himself will return. Many times, speaking of Himself as the Son of Man, he says (to paraphrase), “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, coming in the clouds with angels.” In the book of Acts (1:11), after the Ascension, two men (really, they were angels) who were with the disciples speak of His Return,

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go up into heaven.” (New American Standard Bible)

How literally are we to take these things? will he come from space?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Yet, concerning Islam, my anger has been kindled. Why, you may ask? Well, they not only differ with the New Testament (which, again, is perfectly fine. Understandable.), but they claim that the Christians have it all wrong about Jesus, Jesus didn’t say what He’s recorded as having said about who He was and what He would do. He said something different from what they believe He said.

Your dispute is not with Muslims, it's with God.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The reason being is that Muslims say that the Christian scriptures that exists today are not the same ones given to Jesus, yet they make attempts at trying to prove Islamic doctrine through those same scriptures.

When a Muslim looks at Matthew/Mark/Luke/John they see exactly what it is, oral tradition. In the case of the aforementioned NT texts, they see Hadiths without chains of transmission with wild claims.

Jesus the actual person is one thing, what he received from God (Surah 5:46, Surah 57:27) is another thing, the Oral tradition surrounding Jesus is another thing, and the four anonymous Biographical Narratives of the life of Jesus that ended up in the New Testament are yet another thing.
All of these are not the same topic, they are different degrees or off-shoots of an initial event and reception.

 

[Sundance]

How literally are we to take these things? will he come from space?

I’m not sure that everything in the Bible is meant to be read literally, as some of it is, indeed, poetic or prophetic. The Bible in general is a product of its cultural, religious, and historical context, so it’s important to evaluate it with this in mind. However, with this said, there are instances in which plain messages are delivered, and unclear messages are made clear.

Your dispute is not with Muslims, it's with God.

No, not with God. Rather, with people who possess a particular conception of the events in the New Testament (and the subsequent Christian doctrines built from them) that I find utterly rank and, quite frankly, an insult to its central Figure.

 

[Sundance]

When a Muslim looks at Matthew/Mark/Luke/John they see exactly what it is, oral tradition. In the case of the aforementioned NT texts, they see Hadiths without chains of transmission with wild claims.

Jesus the actual person is one thing, what he received from God (Surah 5:46, Surah 57:27) is another thing, the Oral tradition surrounding Jesus is another thing, and the four anonymous Biographical Narratives of the life of Jesus that ended up in the New Testament are yet another thing.
All of these are not the same topic, they are different degrees or off-shoots of an initial event and reception.

Indeed, there was oral tradition in the early church. However, there were also the Apostles of Jesus who went around teaching.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Jesus in the New Testament claims to be the Son of God, many times referring to God as “[My] Father”. Those around Him understood that He made such claims. Why do Muslims ignore these passages? Additionally, He had foretold his own death (by crucifixion), and the New Testament makes it abundantly clear this is what became of Jesus, not to speak a word to His Resurrection from the dead and eventual return. Yet, Muslims claim that it was fabricated. He was not crucified, but was taken up to Heaven. Why, when both scripture and history confirm the Crucifixion of Jesus as having taken place?

Both "Son(s) of God" and referring to YHWH as "Father" do have their Jewish precedents. The Tanakh of full of different instances of so-called "Son(s) of God", including the famed Exodus 4:22.

From a exegetical POV, I'm more likely to take a Jewish view on this and place all these terms within the Jewish view which will take these as symbolic and often analogous, but definitely not literally (as that is blatant blasphemy against YHWH).

This is just speaking of the NT texts themselves (not the more complex critical aspects and why it isn't 'scripture', etc)

 

[Sundance]

Both "Son(s) of God" and referring to YHWH as "Father" do have their Jewish precedents. The Tanakh of full of different instances of so-called "Son(s) of God", including the famed Exodus 4:22.

From a exegetical POV, I'm more likely to take a Jewish view on this and place all these terms within the Jewish view which will take these as symbolic and often analogous, but definitely not literally (as that is blatant blasphemy against YHWH).

This is just speaking of the NT texts themselves (not the more complex critical aspects and why it isn't 'scripture', etc)

I know this. I explicitly speak to this in another post of mine. Jesus was quite layered (so to speak) in His use of the phrase ‘Son of God’ and also ‘Son of Man’.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I know this. I explicitly speak to this in another post of mine. Jesus was quite layered (so to speak) in His use of the phrase ‘Son of God’ and also ‘Son of Man’.

Taken not literally though.

The Qur'an calls Jesus the "word of God" but not in the Logos sense in John 1:1.
All the Prophets have different titles.
Muhammad is "Slave of God". Amir al-Momineen (Ali) is known as both "Friend of God" and "Lion of God" ('friend' bringing to mind the famous statement about Abraham).

Even when you go through the Tanakh, you see so many of the Prophets in their Hebrew names are quite often named "so and so, of God". One such example for instance "Ezekiel" which means 'God strengthens' ("EL" is God in Hebrew), "Samuel" is another curious one which means 'Name of God', another "Daniel" which roughly means 'God is judge'.

Anyway, both from the Jewish and Islamic context it is impossible to take such attributions to Jesus as literally, the NT quite famously (especially in John) straddles the line between symbolic attribution and literalist supernaturalism.


The "son of Man" though is an eschatological figure in Ezekiel particularly, obviously when translated literally is "Son of Adam".

 

[Sundance]

Taken not literally though.

The Qur'an calls Jesus the "word of God" but not in the Logos sense in John 1:1.
All the Prophets have different titles.
Muhammad is "Slave of God". Amir al-Momineen (Ali) is known as both "Friend of God" and "Lion of God" ('friend' bringing to mind the famous statement about Abraham).

Even when you go through the Tanakh, you see so many of the Prophets in their Hebrew names are quite often named "so and so, of God". One such example for instance "Ezekiel" which means 'God strengthens' ("EL" is God in Hebrew), "Samuel" is another curious one which means 'Name of God', another "Daniel" which roughly means 'God is judge'.

Anyway, both from the Jewish and Islamic context it is impossible to take such attributions to Jesus as literally, the NT quite famously (especially in John) straddles the line between symbolic attribution and literalist supernaturalism.


The "son of Man" though is an eschatological figure in Ezekiel particularly, obviously when translated literally is "Son of Adam".

In the case of Jesus’s use of the phrase ‘Son of God’ in reference to Himself, it is abundantly clear that He meant to assert for Himself something more than merely ‘an intimate relationship with God’, which is what this particular phrase typically serves to signify (you are correct here). If not, then why was He accused of blasphemy by certain individuals who themselves were Jewish as He was?

Typically, theophoric names do not speak to a person’s mission. This is true. However, in the case of Jesus, it does. That is according to what was spoken by the angel Gabriel: “You are to call Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

The phrase ‘Son of Man’ is used from the book of Daniel, not Ezekiel.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

In the case of Jesus’s use of the phrase ‘Son of God’ in reference to Himself, it is abundantly clear that He meant to assert for Himself something more than merely ‘an intimate relationship with God’, which is what this particular phrase typically serves to signify (you are correct here). If not, then why was He accused of blasphemy by certain individuals who themselves were Jewish as He was?

Probably because he caused a lot of political/social and religious disturbance, and some of the stuff (like the infamous John 6:54, was very 'out there' even by Pagan standards)

Typically, theophoric names do not speak to a person’s mission. This is true. However, in the case of Jesus, it does. That is according to what was spoken by the angel Gabriel: “You are to call Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

But there are several other Yeshuas in the Bible, there is Yeshua son of Nun, Yeshua the High Priest and also Yeshua Ben Sira. Yeshua son of Nun certainly fulfilled a "deliverance" role himself.

 

[Sundance]

Probably because he caused a lot of political/social and religious disturbance, and some of the stuff (like the infamous John 6:54, was very 'out there' even by Pagan standards)

This is not why he was accused of blasphemy. I mean, Jesus did those things with His Teachings, but, again, my question is why would He have been accused of blasphemy through His use of the phrase ‘Son of God’ unless He was claiming some kind of divinity for Himself?

But there are several other Yeshuas in the Bible, there is Yeshua son of Nun, also Yeshua Ben Sira. Yeshua son of Nun certainly fulfilled a "deliverance" role himself.

You are correct here. The name ‘Yeshua’ was a name used by other figures in the Bible, yes. Joshua did play such a role in Scripture, taking the reins of leader of the Israelites after Moses. However, let’s not stray too far from the topic: Yeshua of Nazareth, who specifically was given His Name because there was a specific purpose for Him to accomplish.

 

[Trailblazer]

He does tell us that He Himself will return. Many times, speaking of Himself as the Son of Man, he says (to paraphrase), “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, coming in the clouds with angels.” In the book of Acts (1:11), after the Ascension, two men (really, they were angels) who were with the disciples speak of His Return,

You just assume that Jesus was speaking of Himself as the Son of man, but there is no reason to assume that except for the fact that this is what you want to believe. Jesus never referred to the Son of man in the first person; He always spoke in the third person. I believe that is because Jesus was referring to another person who would come, the one Jesus promised to send from the Father. Jesus was a Comforter, but the return of the Christ Spirit that would come in another man would be another Comforter:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah. It is a Baha’i teaching that the title applies to both Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

To explain in brief, I believe that ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

Baha’u’llah explained the meaning of clouds in The Kitáb-i-Íqán. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.

Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Their judgment was clouded. Christians were looking for the same man Jesus in the same body that resurrected and ascended to appear in the actual physical clouds in the sky with power and great glory, trumpets and angels, but when that did not happen that way they rejected Baha’u’llah. However, if one looks at what happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah appeared there is not one prophecy that cannot be applied to Him.

Much of this is explained in Thief in the Night by William Sears, who researched the Bible prophecies for seven years and explained exactly how they were fulfilled by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Thus when Jesus said “ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” we believe that means that His Return, the next Manifestation of God, would reside in the loftiness and exaltation of the divine presence (heaven), and would come down to earth by the will of God in the clouds (veiled from the sight of most people), like a thief in the night.

The reason Christians missed recognizing Baha’u’llah in the mid-19th century (and still do not recognize Him) is because they are waiting for the “literal fulfillment” of those Son of man in the clouds of heaven prophecies. They expect the same physical body of Jesus to come floating down on a physical cloud from heaven, but I am sure you already know this since it is a basic Christian belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go up into heaven.” (New American Standard Bible)

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

As I said before, Bible verses can have more than one interpretation, thus more than one meaning. I am well aware of these verses and I have discussed them at length with Christians for many years. As such, I already have an interpretation.

I believe that the disciples were staring up into the sky as the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven out of their sight. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky because they wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky. Then the angels told the disciples that the same spirit of Jesus that was taken up to heaven will return just as it went to heaven, in like manner.

The verse does not say that the disciples saw a body go up. It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

“But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105

 

[Trailblazer]

As far as Him establishing His Kingdom on the Earth, in the book of Revelation, we see Him building a new Jerusalem on the Earth and sitting on the throne of King David as the Messiah. I know of no Christian who disputes these things.

As with all the other verses you assume are about Jesus, you assume these verses are about Jesus, but the verses that refer to the new Jerusalem say that He will have a new name, which is a dead giveaway that it will not be the same man Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago who will come down from heaven.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Of course all Christians agree with you, as they are also waiting for the same man Jesus to return from heaven on the physical clouds, which is impossible because a physical body cannot "live" above the clouds where there is no oxygen, and heaven is not a physical place where bodies reside, it is a purely spiritual world.

Of course these are just my beliefs, we all have beliefs. However, if you say you believe in the New Testament you cannot say it is Jesus who will come back and establish a Kingdom without explaining why the following verses completely contradict your beliefs.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Moreover, if these verses are in error, that calls all the other verses in the NT into question, and that means we cannot really know what Jesus said about anything. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

How literally are we to take these things? will he come from space?

Yes, that is what Christians believe. The same man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago has been living in heaven for 2000 years and the same man Jesus will come floating down from heaven on the clouds and land feet first on the ground.

 

[Sundance]

You just assume that Jesus was speaking of Himself as the Son of man, but there is no reason to assume that except for the fact that this is what you want to believe. Jesus never referred to the Son of man in the first person; He always spoke in the third person. I believe that is because Jesus was referring to another person who would come, the one Jesus promised to send from the Father. Jesus was a Comforter, but the return of the Christ Spirit that would come in another man would be another Comforter:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Madam, Jesus was referring to Himself whenever He used the phrase ‘Son of Man’, not another. He uses the phrase more than He does use the phrase ‘Son of God’, although He does use this phrase as well.

He didn’t foretell that another man would come, but the Holy Spirit, Who had descended upon the Apostles at the Pentecost, and is in the hearts of all who truly believe in Christ Jesus as their Lord.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah. It is a Baha’i teaching that the title applies to both Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

To explain in brief, I believe that ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

Baha’u’llah explained the meaning of clouds in The Kitáb-i-Íqán. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.

Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Their judgment was clouded. Christians were looking for the same man Jesus in the same body that resurrected and ascended to appear in the actual physical clouds in the sky with power and great glory, trumpets and angels, but when that did not happen that way they rejected Baha’u’llah. However, if one looks at what happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah appeared there is not one prophecy that cannot be applied to Him.

Oh no. It’s not symbolic here at all. It’s quite majestic, absolutely, but not symbolic. Literal. Again, refer to the verse in the book of Acts: “...this same Jesus that you saw go up will come back down.”

It is clear that it is He Himself who will return, not another person. He also says, “No man knows the day nor the hour that the Son of Man is to return. Not the angels, nor even the Son Himself, but only the Father.”


Does anyone know better than God Himself? Of course not.

Much of this is explained in Thief in the Night by William Sears, who researched the Bible prophecies for seven years and explained exactly how they were fulfilled by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Thus when Jesus said “ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” we believe that means that His Return, the next Manifestation of God, would reside in the loftiness and exaltation of the divine presence (heaven), and would come down to earth by the will of God in the clouds (veiled from the sight of most people), like a thief in the night.

The reason Christians missed recognizing Baha’u’llah in the mid-19th century (and still do not recognize Him) is because they are waiting for the “literal fulfillment” of those Son of man in the clouds of heaven prophecies. They expect the same physical body of Jesus to come floating down on a physical cloud from heaven, but I am sure you already know this since it is a basic Christian belief.

Indeed, madam. As I have aforementioned, it is in the New Testament that the very same person will return to Earth, not another in His Name. This is what the Scriptures plainly teach. Also, we know that He Himself will return as it was He who the disciples saw after the Resurrection (in His Body, not merely a ghost or spirit).

 

[Sundance]

As with all the other verses you assume are about Jesus, you assume these verses are about Jesus, but the verses that refer to the new Jerusalem say that He will have a new name, which is a dead giveaway that it will not be the same man Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago who will come down from heaven.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Of course all Christians agree with you, as they are also waiting for the same man Jesus to return from heaven on the physical clouds, which is impossible because a physical body cannot "live" above the clouds where there is no oxygen, and heaven is not a physical place where bodies reside, it is a purely spiritual world.

Of course these are just my beliefs, we all have beliefs. However, if you say you believe in the New Testament you cannot say it is Jesus who will come back and establish a Kingdom without explaining why the following verses completely contradict your beliefs.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Moreover, if these verses are in error, that calls all the other verses in the NT into question, and that means we cannot really know what Jesus said about anything. You cannot have it both ways.

Madam, I find that your interpretation requires much in the way of mental gymnastics regarding Scripture. In the book of Revelation, as you are aware, the subject is Jesus...all the way through. In that verse, He speaks of His New Name (that no person will know). The Name that belongs to Him, not another. In the English, it’s simple grammar. If you’re referring to another person, you would not use first person pronouns, but third person, correct?

 

[Muffled]

And exactly how do you supposedly know that?

IOW, "beliefs" and "facts" are not synonymous terms, though a "belief" can be a "fact" if it's objectively confirmed.

I believe when dealing with anything spiritual the facts tend to be amorphous so I believe it is true that spiritual things are spiritually discerned and I have the Holy Spirit as my guide. That is as good as it gets.

 

[Muffled]

Huh?
What about all the additions, editions and deceptions in your NT, eh?
All fibs come from where.....?

I believe there are a few innocuous additions that are not falsehoods but simply attributed to where they don't belong but are found elsewhere in the NT.

I believe you must be referring to translations or poor copying neither of which has an ulterior motive.

I believe there are none other than those perpetrated to protect the innocent or reported as coming from an ungodly source.