Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[IndigoChild5559]

Not entirely, the Tanakh are records of the early Israelites leading up to Judaism (in the narrative book of Genesis).
The Torah tells the life of Moses but is preceded by all of the Prophets and holy men from Adam to Joseph.
The rest of the Tanakh usually follows the same biographical format as Exodus, then there are the mixed genres of the Nevi'im. Which are prophetic proclamations, sometimes claiming to be god talking but as part of a narrative. And the Ketuvim is poetry and wisdom literature.
The New Testament consists of biographical narratives about the life of Jesus, and letters from some early pre-Christians (as the religion came later), and one book of doctrinal visions sent to various churches.
The Qur'an on the other hand is a book that cover to cover in it's contents, format and style claims non other to be God speaking - collectively the revelations given to Prophet Muhammad over the period of 23 years.
There is some comparative parallel with Moses but Muhammad on the other hand with the Qur'an is direct, whereas Moses with the Torah is squished and condensed between revelation and biography (basically where the same book goes between revelation and biography but does not separate the two).
Consequently, unlike Moses with the Jewish Torah, if you want to read of Muhammads like you don't read the Qur'an because it doesn't give you much info as it's addressed to him and not him speaking.
Some Jews think the Torah is somehow from God (though a simple reading makes that problematic), others say Moses wrote it (yet like God, he is a protagonist in it, which makes it an absurd position). Others say Joshua or even Ezra wrote it. Who knows. But stylistically and form-wise, it does not present itself to be the direct word of God.
(this of course doesn't directly disqualify it or make it irrelevant, but different)



In my reply to you I am explicitly not talking about truth claims but instead what the books in question present themselves to be.

Each claims to be revelation.

The Torah is given straight from God's mouth to Moses' ears, who writes it down. The Nevi'im are given their messages from God through dreams and visions. The Ketuvim are the least direct, they are only inspired by God.

The Christian scriptures claim to be God breathed. It is a weak argument, since the Christian scriptures were not in existence when this verse was written. But Christians do apply it so and believe it fervently.

The Quran is supposed to have been delivered to Muhammad via an Angel.

Not that I believe this about the NT or the Quran. But that is their claim.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Quran all three claim to be revelations. Yet all three contradict each other. They can't all be correct. You can't buy into the Quran simply because it claims to be a revelation, or you'll be locked into the Tanakh and Christian scriptures too, and then you'll be in a state of self contradiction.

Nope, the Tanakah and New Testament does not contradict each other at all, thats your opinion.
You can buy the Old and New Testaments seperately, or in one volume, which is advisable to cross reference what the NT say with the OT.

However, you can never buy the Old Testament and New Testament INCLUdING the Quran.
The reason is that the Quran is in total contradiction with the Bible.
So far is the Quran in contradiction, that Muslim scholars for hundreds of years made the accusation that the Bible must have been changed by Christians and this is the reason for Islam, Allah and Muhammad being a totally different Religion.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Each claims to be revelation.

The Torah is given straight from God's mouth to Moses' ears, who writes it down. The Nevi'im are given their messages from God through dreams and visions. The Ketuvim are the least direct, they are only inspired by God.

The Christian scriptures claim to be God breathed. It is a weak argument, since the Christian scriptures were not in existence when this verse was written. But Christians do apply it so and believe it fervently.

The Quran is supposed to have been delivered to Muhammad via an Angel.

Not that I believe this about the NT or the Quran. But that is their claim.

I find it interesting that you would say the NT is not divinely inspired, or at least compiled by divinely inspired men...
Who were Jews....
Who were educated in Judeasm....
Who would never have taken another God but YHWH...
yet, they accepted YhwehYashua as the Word of YHWH.
Not as another God, but as the Word of God, just as the Spirit of God was YHWH also.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Each claims to be revelation.

The Torah is given straight from God's mouth to Moses' ears, who writes it down. The Nevi'im are given their messages from God through dreams and visions. The Ketuvim are the least direct, they are only inspired by God.

How does this add up when the format and style of the books and question do not present them to be as such?

The Torah for instance, sure I can buy Deuteronomy (because it is basically just a long sermon from Moses that was allegedly written in a scroll - such an event then added onto the epilogue of the book of Deuteronomy later on), but the rest of the Torah is all 3rd person narrative, not from the perspective of either God nor Moses but from the perspective of someone else.
Your explanation is like putting a triangle in a square hole to me. But if you have some kind of theoretical explanation for it, it would be interesting to hear.

The Christian scriptures claim to be God breathed. It is a weak argument, since the Christian scriptures were not in existence when this verse was written. But Christians do apply it so and believe it fervently.

That's a misquote of a letter from Paul, who is usually referring to the Torah from a typical Jewish view (yes I know he was a heretic and the creator of "Christianity", that's beside the point).

Read through Matthew Mark Luke and John. Most begin with genealogies, then all the way throughout it is in 3rd person. Some of the gospels particularly specify that they have gotten their information from different sources etc as objectively it is oral tradition that it is based off.

The book of Luke even directly goes out of it's way to describe what the book matter of fact is:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)

And as John ends:

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
(John 21:24-25)

The point again is that it is not divine revelation and doesn't see itself to be. Divine revelation on the other hand is what the books claim happened within their narratives (Jesus himself being the revelation, not the books of Matthew Mark Luke or John)

Even Paul, claimed to have a vision in the book of Acts, in his letters only claims to write on his own authority and not on God's. Pauls letters are from his own first person ("I, Paul, say so and so").

The Quran is supposed to have been delivered to Muhammad via an Angel.

And the angel did not create Adam, the angel did not breath the spirit into Mary, the angel did not reveal to Moses on Sinai, etc.
Unless you posit some kind of theory akin to Metatron or something.
The angel Gabriel was only the intermediary, the Qur'an was not Gabriels words, the words of the Qur'an present themselves to be God speaking.

Sometimes the Qur'an speaks of a manner of self-reference:

- in the sense of asking why Voidofthesun isn't being understood here, but we return back to first person pretty quickly as I have. It doesn't break this.​

The point here is that the Qur'an presents itself to be God directly speaking, none of the Bible does this. Who knows both the Bible and the Qur'an might be false, Vaishnavite Hindus or Mahayana Buddhists might have been right all along, that's not my concern in this dialogue.

 

[SA Huguenot]

How does this add up when the format and style of the books and question do not present them to be as such?

The Torah for instance, sure I can buy Deuteronomy (because it is basically just a long sermon from Moses that was allegedly written in a scroll - such an event then added onto the epilogue of the book of Deuteronomy later on), but the rest of the Torah is all 3rd person narrative, not from the perspective of either God nor Moses but from the perspective of someone else.
Your explanation is like putting a triangle in a square hole to me. But if you have some kind of theoretical explanation for it, it would be interesting to hear.



That's a misquote of a letter from Paul, who is usually referring to the Torah from a typical Jewish view (yes I know he was a heretic and the creator of "Christianity", that's beside the point).

Read through Matthew Mark Luke and John. Most begin with genealogies, then all the way throughout it is in 3rd person. Some of the gospels particularly specify that they have gotten their information from different sources etc as objectively it is oral tradition that it is based off.

The book of Luke even directly goes out of it's way to describe what the book matter of fact is:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)

And as John ends:

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
(John 21:24-25)

The point again is that it is not divine revelation and doesn't see itself to be. Divine revelation on the other hand is what the books claim happened within their narratives (Jesus himself being the revelation, not the books of Matthew Mark Luke or John)

Even Paul, claimed to have a vision in the book of Acts, in his letters only claims to write on his own authority and not on God's. Pauls letters are from his own first person ("I, Paul, say so and so").



And the angel did not create Adam, the angel did not breath the spirit into Mary, the angel did not reveal to Moses on Sinai, etc.
Unless you posit some kind of theory akin to Metatron or something.
The angel Gabriel was only the intermediary, the Qur'an was not Gabriels words, the words of the Qur'an present themselves to be God speaking.

Sometimes the Qur'an speaks of a manner of self-reference:

- in the sense of asking why Voidofthesun isn't being understood here, but we return back to first person pretty quickly as I have. It doesn't break this.​

The point here is that the Qur'an presents itself to be God directly speaking, none of the Bible does this. Who knows both the Bible and the Qur'an might be false, Vaishnavite Hindus or Mahayana Buddhists might have been right all along, that's not my concern in this dialogue.

This again proves the point that the Islamic scholars would like to claim that the Quran was PERSONALLY DICTATED TO MUHAMMAD AND ONLY ALLAH'S WORDS IS IN THE QURAN.
well, this is so far from the truth, we find many places where theis daemon Gibrieel speaks, where Muhammad speaks ect.

Out of memory I know the best examples are the Quran chapters
93, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110.
If you look at chapters 111, 112, 113, 114, you find the word:"Say:"
Something that indicates that it is Allah who tells Muhammad to relay his words to the people.
But in those chapters I entioned, it is totally absent, and Allah is spoken of in the 3rt person Him, He, They, and neve in the first persin I, WE!

You can see this in chapter 105, 100, 99 for instance where Allah is referred to as "Their Lord", Him and so on.

Another nice observation in Sura 91 is how Allah swears by the Stars, Moon, Sky and the Earth!
Whilst YHWH prohibits such practice, and YHWH Himself never did that.
The closest YHWH swore by was Himself.
And who is mightier than YHWH who swears by the Maker of Israel?

This daemon Gibriel was the one speaking in the Quran, and not YHWH!
And this Daemon swore by the sun, moon, and stars!

 

[firedragon]

Another nice observation in Sura 91 is how Allah swears by the Stars, Moon, Sky and the Earth!

Swear by is not the way you understand swearing mate. Its not like "I swear by the lives of my grandchildren". Anyway, you will not try to understand that so there is no point whatsoever. Anyway with those who can never understand what "relevance" means, it is certain that reasoning is very very hard.

Yet, chapter 91 says "Wa Asshamsi". It does not say "swear".

 

[VoidoftheSun]

This again proves the point that the Islamic scholars would like to claim that the Quran was PERSONALLY DICTATED TO MUHAMMAD AND ONLY ALLAH'S WORDS IS IN THE QURAN.
well, this is so far from the truth, we find many places where theis daemon Gibrieel speaks, where Muhammad speaks ect.

Out of memory I know the best examples are the Quran chapters
93, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110.
If you look at chapters 111, 112, 113, 114, you find the word:"Say:"
Something that indicates that it is Allah who tells Muhammad to relay his words to the people.
But in those chapters I entioned, it is totally absent, and Allah is spoken of in the 3rt person Him, He, They, and neve in the first persin I, WE!

You can see this in chapter 105, 100, 99 for instance where Allah is referred to as "Their Lord", Him and so on.

Another nice observation in Sura 91 is how Allah swears by the Stars, Moon, Sky and the Earth!
Whilst YHWH prohibits such practice, and YHWH Himself never did that.
The closest YHWH swore by was Himself.
And who is mightier than YHWH who swears by the Maker of Israel?

This daemon Gibriel was the one speaking in the Quran, and not YHWH!
And this Daemon swore by the sun, moon, and stars!

I know exactly what you're talking about but fail to see what your supposed issue is. I already established that the Qur'an goes through several tenses (usually we, I and sometimes he). It's stylistic format is always presented as God speaking and never anything else.
As we can see, with VoidoftheSun, sometimes he has to speak like this to convey himself better to his audience, that way they can remember what we are saying.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the Qur'an is not meant for a single context either, so very logically switches to "he" and "Allah" in the way that it conveys things because it's practical use in revelation is also a reflective one. It's practical use is quite obvious in many situations.
It makes way more senses for the Surahs you referenced to use he and him, than we or I. Just like with the famed Ayat al-Kursi, which would lose it's purpose if it was expressed as 'we', seeing that the verses is one of prayer/mediation/reflection etc (later expanded in Hadith).

And as for your ridiculous remark about Surah 91, so? What exactly are you complaining about? it's very obviously using these things, using the enormity of creation as an antecedent to the existential vastness of the situation when Prophets are rejected. It is saying, look at this massive universe, look how beyond all of this God is, yet we send a Prophet and what do you do? God destroys the town (as also mentioned often in the Bible too).
Your apparent complaints are too inconsequential and not worth loosing sleep over.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Qur'an is not meant for a single context either, so very logically switches to "he" and "Allah" in the way that it conveys things because it's practical use in revelation is also a reflective one. It's practical use is quite obvious in many situations.

Ok, if you demand it is always Allah speaking in the Quran, so lets see this surah 111

Sahih International: May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame
And his wife [as well] - the carrier of firewood.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber.
Here we have the first person asking a third person: "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined..."
Your whole argument is destroyed if you say Allah speaks here!

What you are saying is that Allah "hopes" Abu Lahab gets destroyed!
If it was Allah speaking here, he surely would have said: I tell you, Abu Lahab is destroyed.

No Pal, what you have here is Muhammad's words wishing upon a star that Abu Lahab's hands gets destroyed.

If you demand this was Allah speaking, I ask you to who did Allah speak to have his wish granted to destroy Abu Lahab?

You see, If the First person is Allah, he was speaking to a higher authority.
If it was Muhammad speaking, or even Gibriel, the words makes sense.

Sorry, here is just one small fact you should consider in making claims any person can see is wrong.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Why dont we go the the very first sura in the Quran.
Now then you tell me who is praying there?
Is allah praying to himself?
Or is it Gibriel praying to Allah, or Muhammad?


In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
2. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
3. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. It is You we worship, and upon You we call for help.
6. Guide us to the straight path.
7. The path of those You have blessed, not of those against whom there is anger, nor of those who are misguided.

Surely this Sura should also start off with "Say:"
Therefore, To claim that the Quran contains the words of Allah is not true.
Accept it and go on.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Ok, if you demand it is always Allah speaking in the Quran, so lets see this surah 111

Sahih International: May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame
And his wife [as well] - the carrier of firewood.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber.
Here we have the first person asking a third person: "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined..."
Your whole argument is destroyed if you say Allah speaks here!

What you are saying is that Allah "hopes" Abu Lahab gets destroyed!
If it was Allah speaking here, he surely would have said: I tell you, Abu Lahab is destroyed.

No Pal, what you have here is Muhammad's words wishing upon a star that Abu Lahab's hands gets destroyed.

If you demand this was Allah speaking, I ask you to who did Allah speak to have his wish granted to destroy Abu Lahab?

You see, If the First person is Allah, he was speaking to a higher authority.
If it was Muhammad speaking, or even Gibriel, the words makes sense.

Sorry, here is just one small fact you should consider in making claims any person can see is wrong.

I don't get what you're complaining about here either.
It's obvious that God isn't "hoping" that Abu Lahab will burn in the blazing fire (aka hell, Jahannam), it is warning or more clearly, threatening, that God will do this.
It's still in 1st person, it doesn't indicate 2nd or 3rd anywhere.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Why dont we go the the very first sura in the Quran.
Now then you tell me who is praying there?
Is allah praying to himself?
Or is it Gibriel praying to Allah, or Muhammad?


In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
2. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
3. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. It is You we worship, and upon You we call for help.
6. Guide us to the straight path.
7. The path of those You have blessed, not of those against whom there is anger, nor of those who are misguided.

Surely this Sura should also start off with "Say:"
Therefore, To claim that the Quran contains the words of Allah is not true.
Accept it and go on.

Certainly We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses and the great Qurʾān.
(Qur'an, Surah 15:87)

It is the central revealed prayer. It is spoken from two perspectives at once, God declaring itself and we praising God. Nothing problematic here.

I don't think Qul is necessary for it, but I have heard your criticism before. If we take into account what follows directly in Surah al-Baqara, I don't find it particularly needing of having a "say", when Surah al-Fatihah, in the reading sense plays it's role as both a preface and in it's practical sense is used in the Sunnah as the central prayer of the religion. (also likely the most prolifically recited passage of text in history too)

 

[SA Huguenot]

I don't get what you're complaining about here either.
It's obvious that God isn't "hoping" that Abu Lahab will burn in the blazing fire (aka hell, Jahannam), it is warning or more clearly, threatening, that God will do this.
It's still in 1st person, it doesn't indicate 2nd or 3rd anywhere.

I just pondered on your answer, and I realy dont understand how you can claim what you said.
But then again, it is obviously your choice to make a claim that the whole of the Quran is the exact words of Allah.
Even when Allah told Muhammad that Satan intervened and revealed the Satanic verses to Muhammad.
So, who decides if the Quran is actually revealed by God, or Gibriel, or Muhammad, or in the Quran's own experience, Satan.
But to claim that this is the unchangeble words of Allah only, is also a myth, just as all the other claims that the quran never changed, was never edited, never altered etc.
But, enjoy your opinion, even if I dont agree, you have a right to believe it.

 

[firedragon]

Even when Allah told Muhammad that Satan intervened and revealed the Satanic verses to Muhammad.

Where?

 

[firedragon]

What you are saying is that Allah "hopes" Abu Lahab gets destroyed!

Where does it say "Hopes"? Tell me, what's the word that says "Hoped"?

 

[firedragon]

Why dont we go the the very first sura in the Quran.
Now then you tell me who is praying there?
Is allah praying to himself?
Or is it Gibriel praying to Allah, or Muhammad?


In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
2. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
3. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. It is You we worship, and upon You we call for help.
6. Guide us to the straight path.
7. The path of those You have blessed, not of those against whom there is anger, nor of those who are misguided.

Surely this Sura should also start off with "Say:"
Therefore, To claim that the Quran contains the words of Allah is not true.
Accept it and go on.

What does Qur'an mean?

 

[firedragon]

Out of memory I know the best examples are the Quran chapters
93, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110.
If you look at chapters 111, 112, 113, 114, you find the word:"Say:"
Something that indicates that it is Allah who tells Muhammad to relay his words to the people.
But in those chapters I entioned, it is totally absent, and Allah is spoken of in the 3rt person Him, He, They, and neve in the first persin I, WE!

Out of Memory can you tell me where the Qur'an says in these verses "tells Muhammad to relay his words to the people"

And you mentioned some short verses that does not say "Say", because it doesn't need to say "say". So tell me where does it say "Say" in other surahs of the Quran including 109 which you missed in that list you quoted "out of memory" which means you should know the other chapters that says "say" out of memory.

 

[firedragon]

Surely this Sura should also start off with "Say:"

Why?

 

[firedragon]

Each claims to be revelation.

The Torah is given straight from God's mouth to Moses' ears, who writes it down. The Nevi'im are given their messages from God through dreams and visions. The Ketuvim are the least direct, they are only inspired by God.

The Christian scriptures claim to be God breathed. It is a weak argument, since the Christian scriptures were not in existence when this verse was written. But Christians do apply it so and believe it fervently.

The Quran is supposed to have been delivered to Muhammad via an Angel.

Not that I believe this about the NT or the Quran. But that is their claim.

Each of your points are pure rhetorical statements. Just your belief, that's all. All of these things are completely irrelevant, and one person like you making a random statement completely irrelevant is craving for another whole thread. It seems like you are just saying what comes into your mind or what you have heard from hearsay. Its actually absurd to make these statements in a non-relevant thread, because it calls for debate, and requires another whole topic.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Out of Memory can you tell me where the Qur'an says in these verses "tells Muhammad to relay his words to the people"

And you mentioned some short verses that does not say "Say", because it doesn't need to say "say". So tell me where does it say "Say" in other surahs of the Quran including 109 which you missed in that list you quoted "out of memory" which means you should know the other chapters that says "say" out of memory.

Pal, I realy think you should read the quran, open another thread, and we can take these questions up one by one.
It will perhaps turn out to be one of the best read threads ever.
As for the word "Say" to incicate that Muhammad should repeat what Allah said, go to Surra 112, 113, and 114.
Now why did these suras, who were the first, have this, and who forgot the word, Allah or Muhammad.

 

[firedragon]

Pal, I realy think you should read the quran, open another thread, and we can take these questions up one by one.
It will perhaps turn out to be one of the best read threads ever.
As for the word "Say" to incicate that Muhammad should repeat what Allah said, go to Surra 112, 113, and 114.
Now why did these suras, who were the first, have this, and who forgot the word, Allah or Muhammad.

No no. I asked about the other Surahs you "didn't mention out of YOUR MEMORY" that has or not have "Say" in it. What about those?

Telling me to read the Quran does not answer anything mate. Or rather, Pal.

What do you mean forgot? Now since your "Memory" seems to fail, and you can't answer the question about other surahs that say "say", are you asking who forgot to mention the word "Say".

So tell me since you have read the Quran so well, why must every single verse or Surah start with "Say"? Now there is a verse that says "araithum min kaana indhallah" and it says "Say". But there is another verse that says "La thakooloo salasa" and it says "Do not say".

So now tell me, what's the theological problems posed due to the difference between "Say" and "Do not say" in these verses?