Is the Jesus in the Quran the same in the Bible?

[pro4life]

Find one credible scholar in the world that uses your book for any aspect of developing historicity for Jesus.

Here is a hint. They don't exist.

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

 

[JoStories]

Find one credible scholar in the world that uses your book for any aspect of developing historicity for Jesus.

Here is a hint. They don't exist.

Exactly outhouse. If jesus were the same, Muslims would be Christian but they are not. The question is self limiting because of that. And as you state, in my endeavors, I have not found any source that states they are.

 

[pro4life]

Exactly outhouse. If jesus were the same, Muslims would be Christian but they are not. The question is self limiting because of that. And as you state, in my endeavors, I have not found any source that states they are.

What makes you say that Muslims should be the same as the Christians if Jesus was the same?

Denominations in Christianity differ greatly from each other even within the realm of Jesus's divinity

 

[JoStories]

What makes you say that Muslims should be the same as the Christians if Jesus was the same?

Denominations in Christianity differ greatly from each other even within the realm of Jesus's divinity

Agreed. But can you not see Muslims (speaking here only of the radical jihadists) beheading Christians for being same? If Muslims were Christian, there would be no Muslims. They would be Christian. And it has nothing to do with various denominations.

 

[Tumah]

No he can't be the same as in the Bible, because the Bible was tampered with over the years. It is not longer in its true form that Allah gave it in. That's why there are so many translations today. Only the one and only Holy Qur'an has the true depiction of Jesus pbuh.

 

[outhouse]

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

You could not find a single scholar who uses that book, as a historical source for jesus, because it is not one.

 

[Lyndon]

And we're supposed to believe this because you say so??? I don't think so.......

Wikipedia clearly states that some academics think the Gospel of Barnabas is derived from older or original sources, while the majority of CHRISTIAN academics think it is a much later work, of course outhouse believes there is no such thing as an Islamic scholar, so their opinion doesn't count.

Gospel of Barnabas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Redemptionsong]

Muhammad learnt about Jesus, and about many other characters in the Bible, during his travels up and down the trade routes of Arabia and the near East. The knowledge he gained was remixed into a fanciful and false prophecy which has been handed down in a book known as the Qur'an.
There are two sound reasons for dismissing this book as false prophecy. Firstly, it claims to offer a return to law after the Gospel has brought a fulfilment of law. This is a backward step to old religion. Secondly, the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of Jesus and the prophetic message of salvation from sin and death.

So, we are LED to believe the Jesus (Isa) of the Qur'an is the same Jesus as is found in the Bible. But the Isa of the Qur'an is a make-believe Jesus, based on stories gleaned by Muhammad on his travels. The real Christ is known through the Bible, and through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Shad]

And we're supposed to believe this because you say so??? I don't think so.......

Wikipedia clearly states that some academics think the Gospel of Barnabas is derived from older or original sources, while the majority of CHRISTIAN academics think it is a much later work, of course outhouse believes there is no such thing as an Islamic scholar, so their opinion doesn't count.

Gospel of Barnabas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read what you link, son.

This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be late and pseudepigraphical;[1] however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic,[2] Ebionite[3] or Diatessaronic[4]), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine

Do you know what redacted means? It means edited. "Redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine" i.e It was edited to to match doctrine thus is a forgery.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I dont believe in the Pauline version of Jesus son of Mary pbuh.

 

[raph]

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
4:171

So we have:
Messiah
Messenger
Word of God
Spirit of God

Sounds much like Bible to me! There is just a different emphasis in the Quran, then in the Bible. Jesus said, that God is greater than him, but people started believing, that he was God incarnate. Thats why the Quran emphasizes over and over again, that God is one. The thing is, hat Jesus is God in one way and he is not God in another way. Christians see only that he is God. Muslims see only that he isn't God. The truth is a compromise. That is why Allah says that:

"Do you believe in one part of the Book and deny another part of it?"

The Holy Bible clearly states, that Jesus is God while he isn't God. But people only read half of the book, that's why he is either a normal human or God incarnate most of the time.

 

[Lyndon]

Given that the Gospels may have been edited and added to by later people like Paul, its hard to know with any certainty just exactly what Jesus taught about being God or not God, certainly in most of the Gospels Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, not God. I tend to believe that most of the Gospels were fairly accurate and a few suspicious texts added later, and guess what, its those few suspicious texts that are used as proof texts by most Christians, and all the rest of the text which seems to contradict those proof texts, ignored.

 

[steeltoes]

Obviously it's a reference to Jesus Christ, son of Mary, how many Jesus Christs were there if this is not a reference? If it's a different Jesus Christ then which one?

 

[raph]

"Given that the Gospels may have been edited and added to by later people like Paul, its hard to know with any certainty just exactly what Jesus taught about being God or not God, certainly in most of the Gospels Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, not God. I tend to believe that most of the Gospels were fairly accurate and a few suspicious texts added later, and guess what, its those few suspicious texts that are used as proof texts by most Christians, and all the rest of the text which seems to contradict those proof texts, ignored."

I understand your viewpoint, we are talking about a 2000 years old book. But from a religious point of view it is quite illogical for me, that the almighty God sends a messenger, but doesn't leave behind a true book about him. For example, if God allowed people to change the books, this would make the whole concept of prophecy kinda a joke.

"The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

"And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

I find it more plausible, that since God is quite paradox, the scriptures are not always easy to understand logically. So if Jesus said things like "I and the Father are one", "When you see me, you see the Father", "Don't call me good, only God is good", we just accept it. If we can't understand it, we can try to make up concepts like the Trinity. The problem was, when people started to see their made up concepts as truth, they always denied the new messenger, who just wanted to give them a better understanding. Muhammad only said, that Allah is not Jesus, which is also find in the Bible, if Allah is called the Father. He didn't even attack the whole concept of Trinity, he just made clear, that people shouldn't see Jesus as God incarnate and shouldn't say, there are 3 Gods. Both are reasonable advice, if you only look at the Bible text itself, but you need to read the whole text, not just what you want.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Given that the Gospels may have been edited and added to by later people like Paul, its hard to know with any certainty just exactly what Jesus taught about being God or not God, certainly in most of the Gospels Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, not God. I tend to believe that most of the Gospels were fairly accurate and a few suspicious texts added later, and guess what, its those few suspicious texts that are used as proof texts by most Christians, and all the rest of the text which seems to contradict those proof texts, ignored."

I understand your viewpoint, we are talking about a 2000 years old book. But from a religious point of view it is quite illogical for me, that the almighty God sends a messenger, but doesn't leave behind a true book about him. For example, if God allowed people to change the books, this would make the whole concept of prophecy kinda a joke.

"The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

"And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

I find it more plausible, that since God is quite paradox, the scriptures are not always easy to understand logically. So if Jesus said things like "I and the Father are one", "When you see me, you see the Father", "Don't call me good, only God is good", we just accept it. If we can't understand it, we can try to make up concepts like the Trinity. The problem was, when people started to see their made up concepts as truth, they always denied the new messenger, who just wanted to give them a better understanding. Muhammad only said, that Allah is not Jesus, which is also find in the Bible, if Allah is called the Father. He didn't even attack the whole concept of Trinity, he just made clear, that people shouldn't see Jesus as God incarnate and shouldn't say, there are 3 Gods. Both are reasonable advice, if you only look at the Bible text itself, but you need to read the whole text, not just what you want.

Except Trinitarianism isn't that there's 3 Gods. If Muslims and (apparently) Baha'is don't understand our theology, why should we believe them in other religious matters?

 

[raph]

"Except Trinitarianism isn't that there's 3 Gods. If Muslims and (apparently) Baha'is don't understand our theology, why should we believe them in other religious matters?"

I know, but are you sure, that wild arab christians in Mohammeds time didn't believe, that there are 3 Gods? There are even people in the west today, who believe such things. Also many people argue, that whenever there are 3 persons, there are also 3 substances. I believe that a Trinity is not the best explanation for the happenings in the new testament. Wether 3 persons can be one being, is a philosophical debate, that can last for ever without any side winning. I know that Christians define the Trinity as one Being with 3 persons, so the argument is debunked through the definition itself, but I understand how people see flaws in it. Even Christians argue all the time about this concept, I think that is a sign, that the Trinity is not a perfect explanation. I don't think, that the Quran shows a misunderstanding of it, it just stated two facts, Jesus is not the Father incarnate & There is one God. If you keep this two advices, that are also found in the Bible, in mind, it is easier to understand the Bible and Trinity, at least for me.

You are not forced to believe me in religious matters.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Except Trinitarianism isn't that there's 3 Gods. If Muslims and (apparently) Baha'is don't understand our theology, why should we believe them in other religious matters?"

I know, but are you sure, that wild arab christians in Mohammeds time didn't believe, that there are 3 Gods? There are even people in the west today, who believe such things. Also many people argue, that whenever there are 3 persons, there are also 3 substances. I believe that a Trinity is not the best explanation for the happenings in the new testament. Wether 3 persons can be one being, is a philosophical debate, that can last for ever without any side winning. I know that Christians define the Trinity as one Being with 3 persons, so the argument is debunked through the definition itself, but I understand how people see flaws in it. Even Christians argue all the time about this concept, I think that is a sign, that the Trinity is not a perfect explanation. I don't think, that the Quran shows a misunderstanding of it, it just stated two facts, Jesus is not the Father incarnate & There is one God. If you keep this two advices, that are also found in the Bible, in mind, it is easier to understand the Bible and Trinity, at least for me.

You are not forced to believe me in religious matters.

It's more possible that people aren't understanding the concept and so are merely putting forth their own misunderstandings. The Qur'an even says that the Christian Trinity is the Father, Mary and Jesus! So right there is a glaring error in the Qur'an, the supposed perfect revelation from Allah.

 

[raph]

"It's more possible that people aren't understanding the concept and so are merely putting forth their own misunderstandings. The Qur'an even says that the Christian Trinity is the Father, Mary and Jesus! So right there is a glaring error in the Qur'an, the supposed perfect revelation from Allah."

I don't think, that YHWH doesn't understand the Trinity. It is more possible, that people din't understand the Bible, and YHWH corrected them. If you blindly believe those islam bashing sites, this discussion will go on for ever. I know that very well, I had hours of discussions about that same stuff over and over again in the past. I don't wanna do this anymore. since their is no good fruit in such discussions. I leave you here with the clear proof that your view is full of veiles and wrong. You believe, what you want to believe. You can't read a sentence without bias. Try to look at this verse with an open mind, and think , if YHWH really meant the Trinity here:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.[Qur'an 5:116]

There is no mention of Trinity in this verse... It criticises making Jesus and Mary into God...

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

No he can't be the same as in the Bible, because the Bible was tampered with over the years. It is not longer in its true form that Allah gave it in. That's why there are so many translations today. Only the one and only Holy Qur'an has the true depiction of Jesus pbuh.

Your sarcasm is so lame.

 

[outhouse]

Muhammad only said,

Many things that were learned from people already following the Christian traditions.


As a historical source, the slightly edited, yet copies of copies that do contain scribal errors, are still far more valuable as historical source then someone writing 600 years later.

The NT is a historical source for Jesus, even if not the best source, it still is a source.

The Koran is not a historical source for any aspect of Jesus outside mythology and theology.